www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eastern Rite Roman Catholics

Hi all, on a Protestant website I am trying to teach a Lutheran named Robert that the Catholic Church consists of both Western "Latin" or "Roman" rite/tradition Catholics and "Eastern" Catholics of many rites/traditions. That all together this is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. But he refuses to believe me, he says you all are just "Eastern Rite Roman Catholics" because you are in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Here is a brief synopsis of our discussion. I would like and hope that some of you post to explain how you can be an eastern Catholic and be in communion with the bishop of Rome without being a Roman Catholic. (After I get 2 or 3 good posts I want to send him this url so he can read your responses)

Thanks,

BradM

---


Robert wrote:
The article felt that what the modern day Roman Catholic Church teaches concerning the Catholic Church's modern day monarchical bishop is unbiblical.

BradM wrote:
When you say "modern day Roman Catholic Church" are you only speaking of the western "Roman" rite Church or the Catholic Church in its entirety?

For the Catholic Church is not just the Roman Catholic Church but it includes all the eastern Catholic Churches also:

The Catholic Church is: The Roman Catholic Church (western "Roman" or "Latin" rite) plus the Eastern rite Churches: Coptic Catholic Church, Ethopian Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Byelorussian Catholic Church, Bulgarian Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Catholic Church, Italio-Albanian Catholic Church, Melkite Catholic Church, Romanian Catholic Church, Ruthenian Catholic Church, Slovak Catholic Church, Ukranian Catholic Church, Krizevei Catholic Church, Albanian Catholic Church, and the Russian Catholic Church. All of these are "The Catholic Church."


Robert wrote:
Concerning your statement above, I use the the title "Roman Catholic Church" in the wide sense. Anyone who believes in the infallibility and supremecy of the Bishop of Rome, and gives his or her allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, is a member of the ROMAN (because the pope is the bishop of ROME) Catholic Church. This includes members of both the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rites.


BradM wrote:
That is just your opinion, wrong that it is. If you go to any book store and look for the most recent "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church," you won't find one under that heading. The Catechism is titled "Catechism of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH", no mention of Roman Catholic Church in the title. The RCC is only the "Western" or "Latin" rite Church within THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Robert wrote:
I really don't care what name you choose to refer to the religion that has people give their allegiance to the bishop of Rome. That's up to you and your religion however you choose to call yourself. I, personally, find that "Roman Catholicism" is an apt term, and I will continue to use it, because it makes it clear that all people who claim to be "Catholic" must give their allegiance to an infallible and supreme pope, who is the bishop of ROME. As far as I am concerned, there are Eastern Rite Roman Catholics and Latin Rite Roman Catholics who are members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sorry but Robert is right.

If you are in union with Rome then your Roman. The outter ritual of the Eastern Church is the only thing that differs...don't buy the hype, don't believe the lies.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I would warn you that the Administrator will probably say something about your title

Most Eastern Catholics inclusing myself find it worse than calling us "Uniates".

Take some advice:

Change the Subject Title and re-phrase the questions; change the structure.

I am sure your intention is not to offend, just clean it up and I am sure your topic will be acceptable, ok. We all have a taste for a little scandal, but there is a line.

In Christ,


Robert

Shlomo (Peace in Aramaic) Brad,
My allegence is first and formost to my Patriarch (The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and All the East). It is thru him that I am in Communion with the Pope. I belong to a separate Church. Further, the Coptic Catholic Patriarch is also a Pope.

Poosh BaShlomo (Stay in Peace),
Yuhannon

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

ISTM that this applies to attempts to teach reality to those Protestants who are determined to be ignorant and/or belligerent.

This also applies to those who are determined to attack and insult the Byzantine Catholic Church that so generously hosts this Forum.

The truth, as I see it, is that we are the folks who make the Pope Catholic, and not just Roman.

Despite all the difficulties of dealing with Rome, and without surrendering their individual ecclesial cultures, these Churches attempt to live out the will of Christ, that One Church be founded on One Rock. The visible symbol of the Pope is what makes us orthodox.

Those who are always looking for ways to insult others and/or for ways to emphasize the divisions in the Body of Christ are not really orthodox.

I agree with Robert that the title of the thread is offensive. But I disagree with his conclusion.

I believe in free speech, that individuals can pick their own words. I like to think that people think out their words before posting.

But my conclusion based on this belief is that the insult to the Byzantine Catholic Church and its Eastern sisters expressed in the title of this thread was more likely intentional than not.

May the Lord have Mercy on us!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Shlomo John,
I think that the title of this thread is ment as an attention grabber. I bet you a number of us are going to look at this thread just because of the title.

Just today I wrote a private note to one of our members because he used the RC's thing. Brad is trying to get some good apologetics for why the proper term is Catholic, and not Roman Catholic when refering to members of our Church.

Another point that I thought of is that if this gentleman insists on calling us Roman Catholics, ask him if in everyday conversation does he refer to himself as a Lutheran Catholic? If not then tell him to remove the hair and be respectful. If not refer to him as a heretic, and as one who is separated from the Body of Christ.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

If this is true, then before the Great Schism all churches were Roman since they were all in communion with Rome.

God Bless,
Jenny

Glory to Jesus Christ!
We should not be surprised that some people will fail to grasp the reality of the Universal Catholic Church, the Churches that comprise it, and the various rites used to express liturgical devotion.
All we have to do is look at the Gospel of the 5th Sunday of the Great Fast (which would be this coming Sunday for Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics). For the 3rd time in Mark�s Gospel, Christ privately announces to the disciples that He will die. For the 3rd time they fail to grasp the significance of His words.
Christ�s admonition to the disciples, and to us, is that if we really want to understand Him and what He is about, we must see the world differently and respond to the challenges with different sets of values. We must constantly seek the truths we learned in Christ and act with discipleship, bringing ourselves and the people around us to salvation.
Deacon El

Dear Gideon,

If YOU are Roman, then you clearly deny Vatican II and its decree on the Eastern Churches (not "Rites").

When did you decide to place yourself in overt schism from Rome?

Why don't you believe in the Pope and in his statements concerning the ecclesial reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome - and that they are not "Roman?"

I hope you take some time this Lent to think over your views and return to the faith and practice of the Catholic Church.

I see my mission as one of bringing you back to the true Church.

Alex

Dear Brad,

I would proffer your Protestant protagonist exactly with what Jenny said.

The Church of Christ was always based on the holistic, Eucharistic model where the "whole" was comprised in the "part."

Just as Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist in the smallest particle, so too is the Church.

St Paul himself referred to the Churches in various places and preached to them and established new ones.

Your Protestant friend shouldn't assume that church history begins with Martin Luther and John Calvin!

The Church of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were not administered by Rome . . .

They had their own administration, their own liturgical, theological and even, as we have seen, biblical traditions with varying biblical canons.

And yet, before 1054, they all agreed on the primacy of Rome, on the first place of the Bishop of Rome at Ecumenical Councils etc.

The later Eastern Catholic Churches, while being in communion with Rome, have their own ecclesial character intact and their own theological perspective on the primacy of Rome which DIFFERS from the Latin perspective.

Your friend is, ultimately, a Latinized Protestant . . .

Alex

Okay, I'm going to close this thread because of the tone of some of the replies, and because the title itself is offensive to many.

We in the Eastern Catholic Churches are "Eastern Catholic" or, if we wish to be more precise, members of a partituclar Church sui iuris. For examle, one might say, "I am a Melkite Catholic" or a "Byzantine Catholic" -- but we are not Roman Catholics since that term (which isn't even official, but popular) refers only to the members of the Latin Church.

Edward, deacon, sinner and moderator.