www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why the Religion of the Vatican is neither Roman nor Catholic?

I was intrugue with this article. Can anyone give solid comments regarding the "truths" odf the claim especially on the historical perspective.

From what I've read, this is pretty much the standard Eastern position. There's nothing new or novel here that I can see.

I'd disagree. It may be the standard polemic among some Easterners but it fails the historical test in my book. This article reminds me of the same sort of polemics in Abbe Guette's _The Papacy_.

For starters: what does it matter if the old Roman Empire in the West was overrun? That's completely irrelevant. The Roman Empire in the East was overrun in 1453. Does that mean their faith changed then?

Of course, then they say that the Franks changed the papacy from that of "first among equals" to a "monarchial dictatorship." (Of course, these sorts read Pope St Leo and Pope St Gregory Dialogist quite selectively...as witness the continual misrepresentation of Pope St Gregory's dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople on the title "Universal Bishop.")

I think the argument on "catholicity" in the article is similarly flawed. Rome isn't "catholic" because it believes in doctrines which are not ancient. The Armenians and the Copts would say that the Leonine doctrine of the two natures (as adopted at Chalcedon) was not the ancient belief. Is the Palamite theology of divine energies clearly taught in the Apostolic Fathers? Is the doctrine of the Trinity expressly taught in the New Testament? (I'm not denying any of these things...I'm only arguing for the development of doctrine.)

The article quotes the famous Commonitorium of Saint Vincent of Lerins: "that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." - or, in Latin, "id teneamus, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est." Sound impressive. The problem arises with the phrase "ab omnibus". It would be difficult to find any dogmatic teaching which has not been denied by somebody, somewhere, sometime and therefore does not match up to the criterion "ab omnibus".

Incognitus

Dear Dave,
I don't know why you are getting so huffy here. All I wrote was that this view among Eastern Christians, was common. This is irregardless of whether it meets the test in your book.

reply: No. I think you jump to conclusions. Or mayber you are jumping to some that I didn't when I read the article. I don't say the Latin Churches' faith "changed" although we know it did develope. The point is that the "Roman Empire" as we knew it in the West had long ceased upon the advent of the Franks. It still existed in the East which is why the Franks tried to get the existing Roman Empire in the East condemned as heretics due to their "ommision" of the filioque! and their worship of the Images. In order to be the sole Roman Emperor, the other needed to be condemned as a heretic. After the fall of Constantinople, for all practical matters, the East ceased to be "Roman" as well (yet it still continued to be called thus). Again, this isn't polemics, just the way the East views history. They can say its equally polemical of the West to title them "Byzantine" (a word fabricated by modern French historians) rather than what they've always been known as "Roman" since the time St. Constantine moved the imperial capital from old Rome to New Rome.

reply: Now who's being polemical here? Its a basic fact that the Papacy gained more and more perogitives as time marched on. This is certainly true about the time period in question. The Jesuit Schatz, in his "Papal Primacy," shows this quite clearly. Its not polemical simply to recognize this fact.

First off, I think the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was taught from the earliest days of the Church. I don't believe it was "discovered" in the fourth century as some now teach. St. Ignatius of Antioch is as clear as day about it, thus highlighting the clear Trinitarian evidence in the NT. I think its a serious error of modernists to hold it wasn't there from the start. No one taught such a thing until modern times. Did the Fathers ever deny that this doctrine was there from the start?

Secondly, as for the word Catholic, what the writer states is clearly the truth. Most of the West has forgotten the original meaning of the word and take it simply to mean "universal." They also often take it strictly in a geographical sense. To the East this is erroneous. There is nothing wrong with reminding others of the root meaning of the word. Its true that it actually means "fulness." There's also nothing wrong with reminding our Latin brethren that the Church was just as "catholic" on the day of Pentecost -there in Jerusalem- as it is today spread throughout the world. This is because the fulness of truth was there from the start and this is the core meaning of the word "catholic" in referrence to the Church.

I don't understand your objections here except to see them as a big over-reaction. Certainly there may be some malicious intentions behind the author's arguments (as the title seems to imply). But the arguments themselves I don't see as malicious or deserving your exasperated reply.

So please, lighten up a little brother.

Ghazar

p.s. I'm not going to bite on your Armenian / Coptic, comment.

O.k., I understand that the author is taking these arguments to prove something they do not. Just because it is true that the East continued as the Roman Empire much longer than did the West and that the word "Catholic" doesn't really mean geographical universality, doesn't prove that the Latin Church is neither "Roman" nor "catholic." Such statements are offensive, I agree and unneccessary. I'm sorry if my statements seemed to imply that I agreed with such notions. All I meant was that there was some historical reasons for using the words "Roman" and "catholic" in a much different sense than our Latin Church brethren are used to using them. That's all I meant. Heck, I don't really care anyways. My Church was historically not a part of the Roman Imperial Church and was quite often persecuted by her. Far be it from me to come to their defense!

I hope this clarifies my position on the article a little better.

Actually, Ghazar, I think we agree more than we disagree.

If I offended, I apologize. The tone of the article really bothered me. Neither Roman, nor Catholic! Yeah...right! <not>

Dear DTBrown, a.k.a. Leo-Ignatius,

I apologize too for seeming to sympathize with an anti-Catholic. A better title might've been "Much of the East is equally Roman and Catholic." How does that grab you?

Why do people always cut off Vincent's famous dictum at "...always, by all." If I remember correctly, he added immediately after that, "or at least by a majority."

Blessings,
Marduk

I like that approach a lot better!

Just wondering how the visit of the Patriach of New Rome to Old Rome will go today...

Actualy it was the Turks who conquered Constantinople. There's no ethnic connection between Turks and Arabs, Turks are European people whose language is closely related to the Altay branch of Central Asia while the Arabs are semites.

If I am right in my comment, then this error destroys the credibility of the author in question.

If I'm reading this right, the article is saying that the "religion of the Vatican" should not be called the "Roman Catholic Church" because:

1. The term "Roman" belongs to the Roman Empire and thus Constantinople.

2. The "the religion of the Vatican" uses calls itself "Catholic" in order to express and justify its has universal jurisdiction. It also cannot claim this because it teaches doctrines that are clearly not of antiquity.


Taking these two points one by one:

1. There is no reason why the people known as "Byzantines" today could not be called "Romans" except for scholarly biases (i.e. Western scholars count the fall of Rome with the end of the Western Roman Empire and need some other name to distinguish the Empire based in Constaninople). The same could be true for the people of what is now known as "Greece", and in fact I am told some "Greeks" do effectively term themselves "Romans". Thus, the author's point that Constantinople has an equal claim to the tradition of the Roman Empire is in my view legitimate.

What is not legitimate however is the author's statement that the "religion of the Vatican" sometimes calls itself the "Roman Catholic Church" in order to lay sole claim to the traditions of Rome. This is NOT the case,

The "Roman Catholic Church" is called such because it is led by the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, in the Vatican, which is physically located in Rome.

Thus, the use of the word "Roman" is due to geographic location, not to hearken back to any imperial tradition. If for whatever reason the site of the Patriarch of the West had been Carthage, the "religion of the Vatican" would be called the Carthaginian Catholic Church today.



2. There are several other Catholic Churches in union with Rome: take simply the example of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church - which some have proposed be renamed the "Kyivan Catholic Church". Does either name imply that this Church has universal jurisdiction over the entire world?

No. "Catholic" refers to (correct me if I'm wrong) the Church's "catholicity", meaning that it is one united Church open to all persons regardless of nation, class, time or whatever, and includes several "rites" and Churches.

Thus, the "catholic" word is entirely proper to use in terms of the Catholic Church's ecclesiology and has no relation to geography (regardless if it's the Roman or Ukranian Greek Catholic Church).

As for what doctrines are "uncatholic" innovations, this is a topic well beyond the scope of this thread.

And as for the Turks, the [second] army which took Constantinople can most legitimately be called Turks; I don't know what % were Arabs but feel that calling them "Arab" is the author's error.

(dupe deleted)

Sure - here is a comment� and it is not directed at you personally. It is more or less a comment on these types of writers who make a living on sensation� �discovery of the real truth�. Like the guy who claimed biblical stories were proof that aliens spawned the human race. He KNOWS it is a lie and fiction - but he knows he is making money and living well from the gullibility of the general public. We like uncovered secrets - and if there are not any to uncover - we like inventing them.


Who are we going to believe? the author of the article or the legitimate successors of the apostles? It really matters not if any of the fathers of the church misused the term �catholic� or not - that is why Councils came to be called - to nail things down because of confusion and differing opinions. It is a myth that believes that there existed a wide agreement and common consensus among a majority of early church fathers. A myth that crumbles in the light of historical record and the churches own records available to all (Council documents). The results of a Council were often swayed from the majority opinion going in - by one well put speech. Witness Paul speaking to the First Jerusalem Council - of which the greater majority going in to that council - whole heartedly agreed that new members of the church needed to become Jews and be circumcised. Only the council results - counted - not the personal opinions either before or after the Council. Be reminded that even after that Council Peter traveled to a gentile city and ate a gentile meal with Paul and members of that church and when Peter returned to Jerusalem - he was again swayed by majority opinion that members of the church should not eat gentile meals that were not prepared according to strict Jewish laws. So you see that the majority opinion before the Council and the majority opinion after the Council - are completely valueless and only the Council results - count.

If the church made her decisions by a democratic vote - or by the majority held opinion - then we would not have the Eucharist - Jesus himself would have been over-ridden by well over 150 disciples - the majority who left him on the day he announce that we must eat his body and drink his blood. The majority left - so that Jesus turned to the few who remained and said �Will you leave me too?�

A King and a God - do not make their ruling by a democratic majority vote. Their kingship or Godhead is not something that is vested into them by church or kingdom members. The entire kingdom or church - could disagree to a man - and that disagreement has no power or authority over the king or God. Power and authority flow - down - not up. We humans did not make God up and invest God powers into the entity that we had made up.

Man is a creature of necessity - if most agreed and everything was smooth - no Councils would have been necessary. The facts of history are that these early bishops - disagreed on many many things and held differing opinions and interpretations - and so Councils became necessary to settle matters.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch - sainted as he is - was never declared free of error and infallible. Even the Pope is only infallible under very limited conditions - other than that - he is a man and has some errors. We should expect to find errors in Ignatius and his opinions and works. However I would suspect the error to be with the author of the article and the cause of the error to be either his own fear that God might be real - or his own profits.

A word to the wise - if you step in crap - it sticks to your shoes. Why not read better stuff? Something which speaks of the positive aspects of the church and not something which has the purpose of eroding the foundation that Christ died to erect.

One, Holy, Catholic (open to the universal membership of all mankind instead of just those born genetic Jews) and Apostolic Church. Certainly we are well aware that the main purpose of Christ�s coming and crucifixion was to take the church from its exclusive membership of ethnic race (Jews) and open its membership to anyone and every one - universal. A universal church. Jesus himself said that would be the nature of the church he would build.

Again, this was not meant personally but is rather a public comment on authors such as these.

-ray

Sure - here is a comment� and it is not directed at you personally. It is more or less a comment on these types of writers who make a living on sensation� �discovery of the real truth�. Like the guy who claimed biblical stories were proof that aliens spawned the human race. He KNOWS it is a lie and fiction - but he knows he is making money and living well from the gullibility of the general public. We like uncovered secrets - and if there are not any to uncover - we like inventing them.


Who are we going to believe? the author of the article or the legitimate successors of the apostles? It really matters not if any of the fathers of the church misused the term �catholic� or not - that is why Councils came to be called - to nail things down because of confusion and differing opinions. It is a myth that believes that there existed a wide agreement and common consensus among a majority of early church fathers. A myth that crumbles in the light of historical record and the churches own records available to all (Council documents). The results of a Council were often swayed from the majority opinion going in - by one well put speech. Witness Paul speaking to the First Jerusalem Council - of which the greater majority going in to that council - whole heartedly agreed that new members of the church needed to become Jews and be circumcised. Only the council results - counted - not the personal opinions either before or after the Council. Be reminded that even after that Council Peter traveled to a gentile city and ate a gentile meal with Paul and members of that church and when Peter returned to Jerusalem - he was again swayed by majority opinion that members of the church should not eat gentile meals that were not prepared according to strict Jewish laws. So you see that the majority opinion before the Council and the majority opinion after the Council - are completely valueless and only the Council results - count.

If the church made her decisions by a democratic vote - or by the majority held opinion - then we would not have the Eucharist - Jesus himself would have been over-ridden by well over 150 disciples - the majority who left him on the day he announce that we must eat his body and drink his blood. The majority left - so that Jesus turned to the few who remained and said �Will you leave me too?�

A King and a God - do not make their ruling by a democratic majority vote. Their kingship or Godhead is not something that is vested into them by church or kingdom members. The entire kingdom or church - could disagree to a man - and that disagreement has no power or authority over the king or God. Power and authority flow - down - not up. We humans did not make God up and invest God powers into the entity that we had made up.

Man is a creature of necessity - if most agreed and everything was smooth - no Councils would have been necessary. The facts of history are that these early bishops - disagreed on many many things and held differing opinions and interpretations - and so Councils became necessary to settle matters.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch - sainted as he is - was never declared free of error and infallible. Even the Pope is only infallible under very limited conditions - other than that - he is a man and has some errors. We should expect to find errors in Ignatius and his opinions and works. However I would suspect the error to be with the author of the article and the cause of the error to be either his own fear that God might be real - or his own profits.

A word to the wise - if you step in crap - it sticks to your shoes. Why not read better stuff? Something which speaks of the positive aspects of the church and not something which has the purpose of eroding the foundation that Christ died to erect.

One, Holy, Catholic (open to the universal membership of all mankind instead of just those born genetic Jews) and Apostolic Church. Certainly we are well aware that the main purpose of Christ�s coming and crucifixion was to take the church from its exclusive membership of ethnic race (Jews) and open its membership to anyone and every one - universal. A universal church. Jesus himself said that would be the nature of the church he would build.

The church uses the word catholic primarly in the sense of all humanity (and not exclusive to any race of genetics). Jesus - gave us the context to apply.

Again, this was not meant personally but is rather a public comment on authors such as these.

-ray