Your disagreement is understood. Your arguments are valid, but they relate to our break in communion and not what is the Catholic Church. Since there can only be one Church, and that Church is Catholic, all those who are members of that Church, are by definition Catholics. Just because some of the Churches are not in communion with each other does not make them non-Catholic.
You can't claim that the term Catholic applies only to those who are in communion wiht Rome. The Catholic Church is where the aposotlic succession is, where the sacraments are true, and where the clergy is valid. The Vatican recognizes it as such or esle the Eastern Churches would not be true Churches. I do understand that not all Churches in communion with Rome are Latin in their rite, but the they represent barely 2% of the community, with 98% Latin rite. If the Orthodox are to be excluded from Catholic caucuses, then the only other option is to come up with a better name for a caucus which is restricted to the Churches in communion with Rome. Otherwise the Orthodox will post on those threads as well and rightfully so.
I agree that we should state our differences in a way that is not rude or insulting, and we do have our differences, as well as agreements, as you note.
Part of that difference is a perception that anything goes in the Western Church. From Notre Dame, to Pelosi, to various free-wheeling bishops. It seems some of the members of the Churches in communion with Rome (CICWR) seemingly have immunity to being disciplined. Is there any wonder then that to the Orthodox any union with such aberrations seems undesirable or even some individuals in particular actually heretical. I mean, Pelosi argues that the Church was not always opposed to abortion. Is that "orthodox?"
“Since there can only be one Church, and that Church is Catholic, all those who are members of that Church, are by definition Catholics.”
We may not agree entirely here. How I'd phrase it, as a Catholic, is that everyone who is validly baptized in some way has a connection, some level of communion with the Catholic Church. However, many folks who are validly baptized don't have formal membership in the Catholic Church.
Clearly, someone baptized in a Baptist ecclesial assembly who accepts Baptist teaching doesn't have formal membership in the Catholic Church, even though the Catholic Church believes that that person has some level of communion - impaired though it may be - with the Catholic Church, which is the Church of Jesus Christ.
So, I'm not sure whether or not that's quite what the Orthodox believe. I've heard that at least some Orthodox re-baptize other Christians who come into the Orthodox Church, which of course is an explicit rejection of that person's connection in any way to the Church of Christ.
Second, I believe that both the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church hold to the belief that they, themselves, constitute the true Church, complete and without lack. Thus, the Orthodox believe that Orthodoxy is the true Church, and needs nothing else ontologically to be the true Church. I've read Orthodox posters post pretty much this same thing, and assume that it reflects accurately actual Orthodox teaching.
Similarly, we Catholic believe the same thing about our Church, that it is the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ, and lacking nothing ontologically.
What we believe about each other is also similar, I think.
We Catholics phrase it as follows: The Orthodox Church (or Churches) is not the true Church, but rather comprises true particular Churches of the true Church, but lacking complete communion with the true Church, which comprise those true particular Churches in communion with Peter. We believe that ontologically, something is missing from Orthodoxy.
Although the Orthodox don't center their test of communion around a single See as we do, the Orthodox basically believe the converse, I believe.
So we each lay claim to being the true Church, Catholic and Orthodox, one, holy, apostolic, but admit that the other have true particular Churches, even if they don't comprise ontologically the One Church.
Thus, although we each see the other as being in a greatly advantaged place from the unchurched “separated brethren” of various non-apostolic Christian ecclesial communities, we both hold positions that relegate the other to something less than in full communion to the one Church, Catholic and Orthodox.
As for the non-Romans in the Catholic Church, it's true that they represent a small number of folks. But it isn't a numbers game, is it? Otherwise, we have three or four times the numbers that you folks have, and thus, we win!! LOL. What a silly idea.
The fact is, the Catholic Church comprising all those particular Churches in communion with the See of Peter include non-Roman particular Catholic Churches.
Even though there aren't that many of them in comparison to actual Roman Catholics, one can't just wave them away and pretend that since they are few in number, they can be ignored, their patrimony dismissed.
The fact is that in the aggregate, these folks exceed in number several ancient Orthodox Churches. When you say 2%, one must remember that that's 2% of over a billion folks. Which is a couple of tens of millions. Of actual human beings. Often in particular Churches where the practice of the faith is far more vibrant, far more Catholic (even if of an eastern flavor), and with far higher levels of participation than in much of the rest of the Church, Catholic OR Orthodox.
Thus, the proper name for us as an entire group is Catholic.
We could say “Catholic and Orthodox,” and if we wished to press our claim against the Orthodox that we are the true Church and they are merely in true particular Churches, we could demand that they stop using the term “Orthodox” and call themselves Greek Christians, Russian Christians, Georgian Christians, etc., in communion with Constantinople.
But to do such a thing would be tendentious, mean, unnecessary, and most of all, stupid.
The fact is that we Catholics don't generally call ourselves “Catholic and Orthodox.” We generally understand that we're talking about the folks in communion with Constantinope when we talk about the Orthodox. Although we may say “Eastern Orthodox” rather than “Orthodox,” that is usually to distinguish from the Oriental Orthodox (ironic name, since “Oriental” is just another word for “Eastern”).
We don't begrudge the name “Orthodox” to these folks even though we believe that we lay claim to it, as well.
And at least in this country, Orthodox typically refer to themselves as “Orthodox” of one sort or another. And understand what is meant by “Catholic.”
In any event, all arguments that we should share caucus threads generally under the rubric of “Catholic” or otherwise ring hollow when leading Orthodox posters declare us all apostate bishop-worshippers. Even if I thought that you were correct in principle, I would oppose what you suggest because of the vitriol spewed forth and directed at us Catholics.
Practically speaking, here at FR, the Orthodox, whether they admit it or not, do not really consider us part of the true Church, regardless of what nice words they may post to cover up their libelous accusations of apostasy.
“Is there any wonder then that to the Orthodox any union with such aberrations seems undesirable or even some individuals in particular actually heretical. I mean, Pelosi argues that the Church was not always opposed to abortion. Is that ‘orthodox?’”
You mean like my former United States Senator, Paul Sarbanes, or my current United States Representative, John Sarbanes, both self-identified Orthodox Christians who each never met an abortion he didn't like, who respectively ran and currently run for office as completely pro-abortion politicians?
Sorry, kosta50, but in my view, the hierarchies of all our particular Churches haven't done what they ought to do. In my own area, both Messrs. Sarbanes have been celebrated by the local Orthodox churches as favorite Orthodox sons. Not a peep in the press about how these folks aren't very good Orthodox Christians because they oppose the fundamental right of all human beings to life.
At least I'm starting to hear peeps out of my own hierarchs at least disputing the idiocies of folks like Ms. Pelosi, if not disciplining them as I believe they should be disciplined. Perhaps they're saying it, too, but I haven't actually heard any public discussion from any Orthodox prelates of the pro-abort politics of Orthodox politicians.
sitetest