“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
Valid baptism makes one a member of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Valid baptism can be performed by anyone, even a non-believer. From what you are saying, baptism does not make one either "Catholic" or "Orthodox."
However, many folks who are validly baptized don't have formal membership in the Catholic Church.
They don't have formal membership in the Church centered on communion with the Pope of Rome, but they do have a membership in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
So, I'm not sure whether or not that's quite what the Orthodox believe
They believe that valid baptisms brings one into the Church and that there is only one Church. That makes us all ontologically Christian. They also believe that some particular Churches are theologically in disagreement with others. The division is hierarchical.
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
The Eastern Churches baptize the same way the Church (East or West) baptized in the first millennium – triple immersion (or pouring over the head covering the entire body) in the name of the Holy Trinity. If a bishop is unsure how a convert was baptized, or if the baptism of a particular Christian community where the convert comes from baptizes in any other way, the convert will be baptized (not "re-baptized" since no baptism took place) and sealed (chrismated) with holy oil.
If, on the other hand, a bishop can learn to his satisfaction that a person has been baptized then he will order either chrismation of the convert or, as is the usual case of Coptic Orthodox converts, a simple profession of faith (Nicene Creed sans filioque).
The Eastern Churches do not do this as a "rejection" of that person's connection to the Church since invalid baptism does not bring one into the Church. These measures of economy are made entirely for the well being of the convert's soul, so as to dispel any possible doubt that the new member of the Church is truly brought into the Church.
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
The Orthodox hold that their Church has maintained theological orthodoxy of the Church of the Seven Councils, and represents the theologically unchanged Christianity of the same, i.e. the catholic faith once delivered and believed everywhere and always. The Orthodox see the western Church theologically in error on some issues and in need of resolution in an Ecumenical Council. That makes Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, Mary's bodily assumption, Purgatory, etc. in house theological disagreements.
Since the Bishop of Rome is behind these theological differences, the East cannot be in communion with him until these are theologically resolved. This is not a rejection of his primacy or his episcopacy. Communion is an expression of (theological) unity and not a means of achieving one.
The East maintains that any church with an orthodox bishop is the Catholic Church in all its fullness, apostolic authority, sacraments and orthodox faith. The Church is not a sum total of individual parts, but one Body, indivisible and whole. The Church has maintained that at least since +Ignatius (late 1st and early 2nd century).
Similarly, we Catholic believe the same thing about our Church, that it is the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ, and lacking nothing ontologically
The Church lacks nothing ontologically. The Church is divided along episcopal jurisdictions, theologically, not ontologically. Some particular Churches are theologically deficient in the eyes of other Churches. This is a matter of an Ecumenical Council to resolve. The reason one cannot be convened is because there is also a division along ecclesial principles, especially in regards to the extent and meaning of papal primacy. Until such topics are mutually agreed upon, a General Synod cannot be convened to resolve theological differences that developed over centuries. This still does not make us two Churches but one, and our differences are in house differences.
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.
That is rather nonsensical. You cannot have "true particular" Churches that are not part of the True Church. What makes the Church Catholic is the apostolic authority passed on to the bishops in an unbroken succession, a valid clergy, and valid sacraments. Both particular Churches have valid clergy, the same apostolic authority and the same mysteries.
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.
Orthodox posters are individual posters, with individual opinions. After all, that's what the Forum is about – opinions! Even leading Orthodox posters on this Forum do not represent or claim to represent the Orthodox Church but only their private opinions. Last time I checked, none of them has been identified as the official voice of the Orthodox Church. You are creating a straw man my FRiend.
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?
Indeed, the GOC in America has been extremely hypocritical in that regard (including Senator Olympia Snowe).
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.
No argument here. Ethnic chauvinism is obviously at play here. But the GOC does not represent all Orthodox and as far as I know Ecum. Patriarch Batholomew I is staunchly opposed to abortion.
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.
The Orthodox Church of America does. Again, the Greeks are not the only Orthodox in America and do not speak for all Orthodox in this country.