Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

Catholic Education ^ | November 21, 2005 | GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON

[x5452]

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_explained_GOA.aspx

[x5452]

http://saveouruoc.com/newsfromabroad.html

Ukranian Orthodox Church site, lots on the tensions there.

[jo kus]

Hey, that's a pretty neat trick!

Regards

[jo kus]

Thanks, I read it when it was first posted. He has a good handle on the History of the Church. He also is correct in saying that where the Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church, in one sense. Was this Ignatius of Antioch? Anyway, the article does offer some correctives for both West and East. For us, I think, we must look into the idea that the Orthodox ARE catholic in the aspect Father Ziziolas mentions. My concern is the meaning of the word "catholic" refering to the "totality of the whole". When the word catholic was inserted into the Nicean creed, they certainly meant ONLY the Orthodox church - east and west. I wonder what the Nicean Fathers would have thought about the catholicity of the Coptics, because they had valid Eucharistic celebrations. Your thoughts? Thanks for the repost.

Personally, I consider the Orthodox as "part" of the Catholic Church in a major sense because we (Roman Catholics) will allow an Orthodox to partake in the Eucharist. On the back of our Missal, it explains why Protestants or Catholics who have not been to Reconcilliation should NOT come up to receive Communion. Thus, being able to receive the Eucharist in a Roman Church speaks highly of the view of Rome towards the Orthodox. I know the feeling is not mutual, but is that political, theological, or just old feelings that haven't died off yet?

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

The patriarchs were not independant to revise the creed agreed on at the council as they saw fit.

This is not the place to do a full-blown discussion on the filioque. Suffice to say that the West saw a need to change the Creed because of the heresy of Adoptionism was returning in Spain. Rome agreed to the formula - unfortunately without consulting the East. In effect, our beliefs have not changed. We still believe that there is ONE principle within the Divine Godhead, not two. I will note that when this was explained to the East at the Council of Florence, it was readily accepted. Personally, I think that the word "through", rather than "and" would better address the issue. I believe, rightfully so, that the East had a valid complaint about the change in formula. But it is more a political issue than a theological one, once the East found that we are still saying what was said at Nicea. Our beliefs didn't change. I consider the Filioque poor judgment and lousy politics on the part of the Pope and the Spanish Bishops, not a heresy...

With regard to territory, do Irish Catholics go to italian catholic churches and try to convert them into their parishes?

I am not familiar with the dispersal of different cultural groups within the former Soviet Union. Here in the US, people once lived in nationalistic "communities" to help facilitate their brothers and sisters from the old world in settling here in the US. Now, there is no mass exodus from Ireland or Italy or Poland. These communities are no longer one nationality, now we have a "melting pot" of people in the formerly "little Italy" or "little Ireland" communities. People here don't consider themselves as Italian first, but Americans (at least the second generation doesn't). Thus, it is hard to make the comparison you are making here.

Do they setup churches across the street and convince catholics in the other church to stop attending there and start attending across the way?

Again, I am not sure whether we can apply the same concept. I don't think there was a DESIRE to raise up a Polish Church in the middle of an Italian neighborhood! We are talking two completely different cultures. And of course, there is only one Catholic Church, so no need to build another one adjacent. And Russia? Are the Ukranian Catholics and Ukranian Orthodox of the same background, culturally speaking? I believe you are comparing apples to oranges, because Catholic and Orthodox are NOT the same religion. I don't see Irish Catholics vs. Italian Catholics as the same comparison as Ukranian Catholics vs Ukranian Orthodox.

We DO have Protestants doing what you describe, though. They DO set up "churches" nearby Catholic ones, they do evangelize, they are sometimes quite active at it. Certainly, it is a hassle, but for one strong in their faith, it is just a hassle. And in reality, it is an opportunity for us to evangelize them! No one I know who is devoted and knows their faith would even consider becoming Protestant. If Orthodox people who are devoted to their faith live nearby a Catholic Church, why are you worried that they will steal the parishoners? I think the only people who leave a particular faith are the ones who were either (a) not very strong in their faith to begin with or (b) are convinced the other church has more claims to the truth presented by Christ.

Regards

[x5452]

The analogy is to the current situation in the Former Soviet Republics where on the one hand uniate churches are appying these tactics, and Rome, whom they aledgedly answer to, is saying 'buy hey we wanna be friends really'. You can't do the first and expect the latter to work. Uniate churches are trying to convert the already faithful, just as if an Intalian church tried to convert and Irish Catholic church. You can't say 'we're ready to ALL be Catholic, while still saying 'you're not catholic you gotta change'.

[Kolokotronis]

"Was this Ignatius of Antioch?" Yes, in his Epistle to the Smyrneans. His Eucharistic theology is among the finest expressions of The Church's understanding of the Eucharist in the history of The Church. When he used the word "kaqolikh", he meant it in the sense of universal in the sense of united everywhere. So in fact what Met. John (by the way, he's not Father John, he is a Metropolitan, sort of the equivalent of a cardinal) has said is both historically and theologically accurate.

As for the monophysites, you must remember that at the time of the Council of Nicea, Monophysitism had not been condemned so it probably wasn't that much of an issue.

As for intercommunion, the fact is that because Orthodoxy looks to the Eucharist as the central element of the unity of The Church, as +Ignatius defined it for us, to participate in intercommunion without an identity of faith is wrong; it sends the wrong signal. This, by the way, says nothing whatever about the validity of the Latin Rite Eucharist. Some might complain that we allow intercommunion with monophysites as a matter of economia. This is true, but the fact is that our theologians have determined that the monophysite controversy was about words not dogma and so the truth is that your average monophysite, say a Copt or an Armenian, is probably closer on points of Faith than Roman Catholics are. In any event, Orthodoxy has discussed intercommunion with the Roman Church by economia and not finding consensus, decided not to do it for now. The arguments were solidly theological, in my opinion, on both sides. You will be interested to know that it was the representatives of the Russian Church who were the great proponents of intercommunion and those of the EP who were most firmly against it.

[Buggman]

"Long before there was a New Testament, there was a deposit of faith concerning the nature of God, His threefold personality, His purpose in making man, the Incarnation."

Yes. It's called the Tanakh--an acronym for Torah (Teachings, or Law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings)--aka the Old Testament.

If the Roman Catholic Church were really the deposit of the traditions of the Apostles, it would be Torah-observant instead of making up its own rules as it went along.

[jo kus]

First, is Rome "behind" the tactics you talk about?

And secondly, I ask you again, WHY would a Polish Catholic try to convert an Italian Catholic? Your comparison of Ukranian Orthodox and Ukranian Catholics are different comparisons.

Regards

[jo kus]

First, my comment on heresies following Nicea. Do the Orthodox consider them Catholic in the sense of the word found in the Creed? The problem here is there are several meanings of the word "catholic". What was the intent of the Nicean Fathers? Universal, or totality of the whole. For them, I say both. There was no major separation yet where heretics had "valid" eucharist. But with the Monophysites, that changes. So are they catholic? I wonder where the good Metropolitan stands on this question?

I am not following the Orthodox's reasonings on the intercommunion issue. Please forgive me.

You say the Monophysites, though called a heretical church by Councils, are closer to the Orthodox than Rome, which you say is a Church NOT in heresy? How is giving communion to heretics approved within the Church, while refusing it to others who are not heretics? What is the reasoning for this seeming contradiction?

Secondly, you say the Monophysites are not considered heretics because of "words" rather than beliefs? Perhaps that is true. But do the Monophysites believe that Christ has one will or two? Isn't such matters the very reason why the Church in the East was called "Orthodox", because they followed the ancient traditions later defined by Councils? Was it all just a misunderstanding? If so, why are the Monophysites not united with the Orthodox or us?

I am not sure I fully understand the East's stance on this. Perhaps it is more political. I don't know. But if the Orthodox heirarchy does not see Rome as a heretical Church, then it seems strange that there is no intercommunion from the Orthodox (it does exist to the Orthodox). Just curious.

Brother in Christ

[cardinal4]

Good post. I have always taken issue with the "Constantine" foundng of Christianity..

[NYer]

I consider the Filioque poor judgment and lousy politics on the part of the Pope and the Spanish Bishops, not a heresy...

Excellent point!

Now, there is no mass exodus from Ireland or Italy or Poland. These communities are no longer one nationality, now we have a "melting pot" of people in the formerly "little Italy" or "little Ireland" communities.

Precisely! Here in the northeast, there are so many 'ethnic' churches, lovingly constructed by their respective communities over 100 years ago. These ethnic groups were assimilated into the American landscape and have since moved to the suburbs or to other states and these magnificent churches now stand nearly empty. The bishop is closing them down.

This is also true with our small Maronite community. On December 4, we will celebrate the parish's Centennial. It was built by Lebanese immigrants and the old timers still refer to it as a 'Lebanese' parish. But Father recently addressed this with them and us, explaining that St. Ann's is no longer an 'ethnic' church but a Maronite Catholic Church that serves all catholics, regardless of their country of origin. (that includes me :-)

Catholic is catholic, regardless of one's nationality or tradition. As a Roman Catholic attending a Maronite Cathoic Church, I have enjoyed learning about their customs and foods which are tasty and delectible. But when the meatless potluck dinner is organized for Good Friday, I bring a non-Lebanese dish to introduce them to other cuisines and they love it!

If you look at the explosion of catholicism in the southern US states, the most obvious factor is the lack of ethnicity. Those churches are catholic first, with ethnic groups contributing, where applicable.

[x5452]

1. Would a Polish Catholic try to Convert an Italian one? NO! Then Why would Catholics, in communion with Rome, who is in one ear telling the Orthodox patriarch that we are all part of one true church be converting Orthodox parishioners, and challanging orthodox properties?

2. If Rome isn't behind it why not put a stop to it? Rome recently had a chance when the Uniate church wanted to move it's main administration to Kiev, a central Orthodox city, from Lviv. Rome refused to intervene.

[x5452]

So the Catholic plan if the manage to bring Moscow under their heal is to take away everyone's ethnic traditions as well?

[NYer]

So the Catholic plan if the manage to bring Moscow under their heal is to take away everyone's ethnic traditions as well?

The US is a melting pot. How did you arrive at this question based on my response to a post regarding the US?

As for Russia, the Catholic Church was already there. It will address the needs of its congregation, ethnic or otherwise.

[x5452]

You were rejoicing at the non-Lebonese ethnicity in your church.

I don't think de-ethnicization is a GOOD thing.

[Kolokotronis]

" Do the Orthodox consider them Catholic in the sense of the word found in the Creed?"

Who, ancient heretics? I don't understand your question.

"The problem here is there are several meanings of the word "catholic". What was the intent of the Nicean Fathers? Universal, or totality of the whole. For them, I say both. There was no major separation yet where heretics had "valid" eucharist. But with the Monophysites, that changes. So are they catholic? I wonder where the good Metropolitan stands on this question?"

My suspicion is that Met. John would say that the Monophysites are in The Church and thus "Catholics". I say this because I know he had a hand in the decisions regarding intercommunion by economia with the monophysites.

"You say the Monophysites, though called a heretical church by Councils, are closer to the Orthodox than Rome, which you say is a Church NOT in heresy?"

Here's a link to an interesting website on the subject:

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state05.html

Did I say the Roman Church was not in heresy? I don't remember saying that. It is distinctly possible that the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I are in fact heretical, same goes for the Immaculate Conception dogma which arguably denies the human nature of Christ. But heretical or not, using the term towards each other, today, is not helpful at all and we have been instructed not to use it with each other.

"I am not sure I fully understand the East's stance on this. Perhaps it is more political."

Well, as to the monophysites, that cited website might help. As for our position on intercommunion with Rome, I guess I haven't much more to say than I already have. I can tell you that its not political. If it were political I think there would be intercommunion.

[Kolokotronis]

"Please. I know many orthodox myself, since my sister-in-law is Greek Orthodox (from Greece), and, as someone perfectly at home among the Melkites, having spent years with them, I know lots of Orthodox through them, as they tend to run in similar circles."

Remember when you were little and your mother warned you about running around with the wrong crowd...! :)

[Uri’el-2012]

Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Church,

The Wild Olive Branch

b'shem Y'shua

[jo kus]

So that's where you got that cool little picture from...

I'll check it out later. Thanks for the website.

Regards