Ontology. Nice analogy regarding “more human” or “less human,” but I don't accept it as applicable.
I can only tell you what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that the true Church, the fullness of the Church, subsists in the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church is ontologically the one Church, complete and lacking nothing.
The Catholic Church does not believe that there is some invisible true Church of which the Catholic Church is merely one part, one more denomination. Whether you find the claim true, false, insulting, or whatever, the belief of the Catholic Church is that it is the one Church.
We do not believe that this is the case with the Orthodox Churches. We believe that they are in schism from the true Church.
The Polish National Catholic Church is an apostolic Church in the United States that has, as far as I know, continuing apostolic succession, validity of holy orders and sacraments, etc. They are in schism from the Catholic Church, but they have valid bishops, etc. Yet, we do not consider them to be the true Church. They might be a true particular Church, but ontologically, they lack much (although the Catholic Church doesn't believe that the Orthodox Churches lack much at all).
Regarding baptism, I have heard of some Orthodox re-baptising Catholics. Others don't. Thus, it appears to vary from one group to another what is considered a “valid” baptism.
Needless to say, the Catholic Church believes that all Her baptisms are valid. And we believe that all Orthodox baptisms are also valid. I have never, ever heard of any Orthodox ever being [re-]baptised when received into full communion in the Catholic Church.
As well, we Catholics seem to be somewhat more uniform in determining validity than the Orthodox.
“The people are the guardians of the Orthodox faith. No one individual is. The Orthodox do not give any one individual, save Christ, the sole credit for anything.”
If the attitudes of hostility and exclusion, of condescension and contempt were limited to a single Orthodox poster, I would credit what you say. But they are not.
“I have already indicated to you that I find that reprehensible and reject such ethnic chauvinism...”
It was YOU who excoriated CATHOLICS for our failure to counter the heresies of folks like Ms. Pelosi as reason why the ORTHODOX might not want to accomplish reunion with the CATHOLICS.
But as we can see from your own admissions, many of the Orthodox hierarchy are as guilty, and perhaps more guilty than the Catholic hierarchy in this regard.
I will note that the hierarchs of the Catholic Church have become more vocal about this sort of thing. In the past, the hierarchs have condemned positions like, “Well, personally I'm against abortion, but I believe that it should nonetheless be legally permitted,” but have said nothing about individual Catholic politicians who were pro-abortion.
Now, although only a few hierarchs have actually disciplined any individual Catholic politicians (and it is heartening that this is actually happening to any degree at all, as it has been missing for most of the past 35 years that the United States has been degraded by legal abortion on demand), many hierarchs are now speaking out publicly when individual Catholic pro-abortion politicians try to dress up their murderousness as legitimately Catholic. As well, it was heartening to see nearly a hundred of our hierarchs denounce Fr. Jenkins for inviting the anti-Christ Obama to receive high honors at Notre Dame this past spring.
It isn't enough, to my mind, but it's much more than I remember in my lifetime.
In any event, you initially stated that Catholic hierarchical failure to publicly confront Catholic heretics like Ms. Pelosi was reason to give the Orthodox pause in thinking about reunion with us.
But at least in recent years, that assertion falls flat when one considers that her heresies (and those of other prominent Catholic politicians by other Catholic hierarchs) were publicly condemned by her own archbishop, by the archbishop of the jurisdiction where she serves in Congress, and by many other Catholic hierarchs.
This is in contradistinction to at least some large parts of the Orthodox communion and how they deal with their own public heretics in public office.
Perhaps we CATHOLICS should be wary of you latitudinarian ORTHODOX when thinking about reunion (my tongue is at least partly in my cheek).
But all of this is really not relevant to the question at hand, which is caucus labeling.
There are many things wrong with the moderation of the Religion Forum, some of them intrinsically evil.
But the method of caucus labeling isn't one of them.
Although we are close, we aren't one. We do not each believe about the other’s Church what we believe about our own. It's appropriate for there to be mixed caucuses, and it's appropriate for their to be exclusive caucuses. The one-word monikers used by the Religion Moderator are short, effective, widely-understood terms that describe each of our communions, and serve the purpose for which they exist.
sitetest
It was the case for years hereon that
Roman Catholics/ Vatican Affiliates/ Papal Submissives/ Romanists/ Papists/ Vatican Associates/ Latins/ et al
Would run rough shod over every other identifiable group with virtual impunity and in the harshest, most hostile, most arrogant and even sleasiest ways.
I don't know if some mods were members of the Vatican institutions(s) or if they were intimidated by such fierceness or if money was influential or what. I just know that's what it looked like 'on the street' in the threads day in day out, year in year out. It was somewhat common, from Protty's perspectives, for the Vatican Affiliates/ Papal submissives et al to get Prottys ran off totally.
THANKFULLY, a tireless, wise, brilliant, seasoned, balanced, understanding, compassionate, fair, tough as nails, truly spiritual, truly prayerful, with a good sense of humor, anointed, model Christian of a Religion Moderator stepped up to the plate.
In relatively short order, categories of threads were established which afforded all groups a chance to post and interact without being hassled or sabotaged by their oponents. Devotional and other threads were established wherein God could be the focus without any negativity at all. Personal assaults . . . which had been worst on the Rel Forum were now minimized compared to the rest of FR.
Finally, the Religion Forum began to be a place where MORE civil AUTHENTIC DIALOGUE !COULD! occur about truly spiritual and Biblical issues instead of mostly about how one group had more snot & zits on their faces than their opposing groups.
I realize that a significant collection of cliques of Vatican Affiliates/ Papal Submissives; Roman Catholics/ Romanists/ Latins/ Papists/ Vatican Associates/ et al in their chronic !!!!CONTROL!!!! phreaque and !!!!DEMANDING!!!! modes are upset that FR has NOT YET been brought to utterly and totally heel, kowtow as a low ranking department of the Vatican. I realize that causes some to lose sleep and be most disagreeable to the max.
If there's any "evil" involved, it's the evil of such a black, arrogant, selfish, self-righteous, willfully blind heart that would dare !!!!DEMAND!!!! such a mentality and treatment on such a forum.
God have mercy.
I believe you owe the RM and JimRob a very vivid, wholesale and contrite confession, repentance and apology. And given the FREEPATHON, probably a $1,000 penance donation would be a nice token of recompense for the outrageous spiritual slander that statement lobbed against the RM and JimRob and this site.
if you are going to bash people at least ping them over
Well, then you are making up your own meaning of ontology. It wouldn't be the first corruption of Greek by the west, for sure.
The Catholic Church teaches that the true Church, the fullness of the Church, subsists in the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church is ontologically the one Church, complete and lacking nothing.
That's what the Orthodox Church teaches too.
We do not believe that this is the case with the Orthodox Churches. We believe that they are in schism from the true Church.
I am aware of that. However, I do not see why. What is lacking in the Eastern Church that is not lacking in the Western?
The Polish National Catholic Church is an apostolic Church in the United States that has, as far as I know, continuing apostolic succession, validity of holy orders and sacraments, etc. They are in schism from the Catholic Church
Why?
Regarding baptism, I have heard of some Orthodox re-baptising Catholics. Others don't. Thus, it appears to vary from one group to another what is considered a “valid” baptism.
Sure. Those Catholics who cannot provide proof of baptism or whose baptism did not conform to the baptismal formula practiced by the Church in the first millennium have to be baptized. There is only one "valid" baptism.
Needless to say, the Catholic Church believes that all Her baptisms are valid. And we believe that all Orthodox baptisms are also valid. I have never, ever heard of any Orthodox ever being [re-]baptised when received into full communion in the Catholic Church.
I would love to hear the excuse for such a belief, since it is not what the Cathodic church practiced in the first millennium.
As well, we Catholics seem to be somewhat more uniform in determining validity than the Orthodox.
LOL! There is but one way to baptize and that was determined and practiced by the Catholic Church before Frankish innovations introduced a different "tradition."
If the attitudes of hostility and exclusion, of condescension and contempt were limited to a single Orthodox poster, I would credit what you say. But they are not.
There is no hostility or exclusion, condescension and contempt by the Orthodox as a whole.
It was YOU who excoriated CATHOLICS for our failure to counter the heresies of folks like Ms. Pelosi as reason why the ORTHODOX might not want to accomplish reunion with the CATHOLICS.
The likes of Sarbanes were unknown to me. This is the first time I hear about them. I am not Greek. Besides, while the Orthodox Church does oppose abortion on moral grounds, it does not make it her top dogmatic issue. Rather it treats abortion as any other murder. Supporting murder is not the same as committing it. The commandment does not say you are guilty of supporting such a thing but actually doing it. It is the "other lung" that makes it a top dogmatic issue and then does not act accordingly.
But as we can see from your own admissions, many of the Orthodox hierarchy are as guilty, and perhaps more guilty than the Catholic hierarchy in this regard
Not really, given the scope of the issue as seen in the Eastern Church. Supporters of abortion are on thin moral ice, but are not in contempt of the "magisterium" (which does not exist in the Eastern tradition).
Perhaps we CATHOLICS should be wary of you latitudinarian ORTHODOX when thinking about reunion (my tongue is at least partly in my cheek).
On issues of dogma (Holy Trinity, Christology, Mariology) the Church in the East is never latitudinarian. The Orthodox Church simply does not raise abortion to the same level but treats is as any other sin, be it adultery, lying, stealing, etc. that one actually commits. To the best of my knowledge none of the Sarbanes or Olympia Snowe are guilty of murder. Nevertheless, I think it shameful for honoring Orthodox politicians supporting abortion for no reason other than ethnic chauvinism.
It is the western hierarchs in general who raise abortion to the level of top dogma (which may itself be a heresy), and yet meet it in a latitudinarian fashion. So, seeing the difference, I would imagine it prudent for them to think very hard about the problems associated with any reunion at this point. The inconsistency is entirely theirs.
Although we are close, we aren't one.
We are both in the same holy, catholic and apostolic Church whose authority is derived from apostolic succession, whose clergy are valid by the same and whose sacraments are true for the same reason. That's what makes our Church what it is. You are no more Catholic than the Orthodox in that regard as all members, hierarchs, clergy and sacraments of the true Church are ontologically indistinguishable.
We are not one when it comes to theology and ecclesiologiy. That is not an ontological division. We are divided in our communion, not because your communion is invalid but because communion is an expression of union and not a means of achieving one.