For Internet rulers, the Vatican is officially .catholic

cns ^ | October 15, 2013 | Carol GLATZ

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- As top-level Internet domain names are being rolled out and up for grabs, the Vatican has scored control of .catholic.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which coordinates the assignment of Internet domain names and addresses around the world, has been allowing entities to apply for ownership of hundreds, and soon thousands, of new domain names such as .london, .insurance and .xbox, among others.

The Pontifical Council for Social Communications completed the application process last year and recently received confirmation that it will control the new Internet address extension .catholic and decide who is allowed to use it.

The Vatican will run .catholic and its equivalents in other languages using Latin letters, as well as the equivalent of the word "Catholic" in the Cyrillic, Arabic and Chinese alphabets.

Msgr. Paul Tighe, secretary of the social communications council, told Catholic News Service Oct. 15, "We are very happy the approval has been achieved, but there is still a lot of work to do before it goes live."

Contrary to reports that the domain name would go live in October, Msgr. Tighe said seeing sites with the .catholic extension online still has "a long way to go." There are still bureaucratic kinks to iron out, like contracts to sign, technical trials to run and clear guidelines to set up for potential users of the domain name.

As the monsignor told CNS last year, the Vatican plans to allow "institutions and communities that have canonical recognition" to use the extension, "so people online -- Catholics and non-Catholics -- will know a site is authentically Catholic."

The Vatican does not plan to allow individual bloggers or private Catholics to use ".catholic," Msgr. Tighe said. Use of the domain would be limited to those with a formal canonical recognition: dioceses, parishes and other territorial church jurisdictions; religious orders and other canonically recognized communities; and Catholic institutions such as universities, schools and hospitals.

Running the domain name will promote "a more cohesive and organized presence" of the church online, "so the recognized structure of the church can be mirrored in the digital space," he said.

[NYer]

Recently, a web site entitled "vaticancatholic.com" has been running ads on FOX. It points to Most Holy Family Monastery, a sedevacantist organization run by Michael Dimond. Due to its publication of a pamphlet entitled "101 Heresies of Anti-Pope John Paul II" it was declared "a dissident organization that challenges the papal authority" by The Catholic League in January, 1999. The group has also been condemned by the Catholic diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, and was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

To run a series of ads on FOX is costly. Any thoughts on who might be their financial backer?

[annalex]

the equivalent of the word "Catholic" in the Cyrillic

Which one?

Каѳолик/Каѳолическій-ая-ое or Католик/Католический-ая-ое?

Most "Cyrillic" nations no longer know the Cyrillic alphabet.

[imardmd1]

Claiming thre identity "dot catholic" and claiming that it is unique and exclusive entitlement for the Church and Bishop of Rome is an absolutely wrong invasion of the assignment of that word.

Almost every major Christian denomination includes "catholic" in their faith rubric. It is most particularly featured in their formulation as "The Apostles Creed" and used regularly in their rituals. The Roman Catholic Church should not be given the exclusive right to control its use.

Who did this, and how was such a decision made without ascribing it as a term for use of the entire constituency of Christendom?

[markomalley]

Almost every major Christian denomination includes "catholic" in their faith rubric. It is most particularly featured in their formulation as "The Apostles Creed" and used regularly in their rituals. The Roman Catholic Church should not be given the exclusive right to control its use.

If you think about it, at the time the "Symbolum Apostolorum" or the "Symbolum Nicenum" were written, there was only one Church. The gnostic Marcionites had largely died off by that time. In fact, the "Symbolum Nicenum" was largely written as a confirmation of the rejection of the then currently popular heresy of Arianism that had created a schism in the Church.

In other words, I think you are trying to find a controversy where none exists.

On the other hand, what will be interesting to me is who will be the official domain name registrar for some other ones...then you will have some authentic squabbles rather than this one you are trying to create. For example:

• .orthodox -- I would imagine that Patriarch Kirill and the Russians will get control of that; by honor, the registrar of that one should be Patriarch Bartholomew and the Archdiocese of Constantinople; however, I doubt that there is enough organization and political power there to achieve that goal.
• .christian -- who do you think will get control of that domain? My guess is the World Council of Churches (that ought to thrill you to death)
• .lutheran -- hmmm....
• .presbyterian -- another hmmmm....
• .baptist -- I would bet that the Southern Baptists would want control of that; however, I bet that some squishy international Baptist federation that is pro-female preacher and pro-abortion and pro-socialism will end up with that one...
• or we could even make it more generic: how about the registrar for the .church top level domain?
• etc....

There could potentially be a whole bunch of controversy here. Particularly if somebody nefarious ends up getting control of one of those top level domains...

[Tax-chick]

... and was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Opposed to homosexual "marriage," are they?

[old and tired]

Mel Gibson?

[vladimir998]

Only Catholics really have a right to use the term “catholic”. Protestants, for instance, can’t use it in good faith because their sects only date back to the 16th century and only came into existence in opposition to the Catholic Church.

[imardmd1]

Only Catholics really have a right to use the term “catholic”. Protestants, for instance, can’t use it in good faith because their sects only date back to the 16th century and only came into existence in opposition to the Catholic Church.

Well, that's an interesting but ill-founded construction of what the word "catholic" means.

Protestants, in fact, are not the only Christ-loyal churches throughout the ages which have not affiliated with the sphere of influence claimed by the Bishops of Rome. Hence, there is on earth really no uniform catholic association of churches, all subscribing to the same faith formula, with a shared government of supernumeraries external to the local churches.

Regardless of what the Romanists think, most Protestant denominations affirm a "holy catholic church," and thus are just as catholic in loyalty to their reformed concept of Christ's plan for His Church. They, of course, view that the historic church continues through them, by reforming to eliminate the corruption permeating to the core the structure from which they disassociated, thus not interrupting catholicism as being continued in them.

In view of this, it is both presumptuous and vulgar for the Romanist contingent to claim sole right to ownership of the internet label "catholic" when the domain "rcc" might well be a badge to serve them better and less frictive to others.

[NYer]

Hence, there is on earth really no uniform catholic association of churches, all subscribing to the same faith formula, with a shared government of supernumeraries external to the local churches.

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).

A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.

[vladimir998]

“Well, that’s an interesting but ill-founded construction of what the word “catholic” means.”

No, actually it’s entirely correct. The word “catholic” means “universal”. Protestants are not part of the universal Church nor do they hold the universal faith. They belong to Protestant sects - none of which predate Martin Luther.

“Regardless of what the Romanists think, most Protestant denominations affirm a “holy catholic church,” and thus are just as catholic in loyalty to their reformed concept of Christ’s plan for His Church.”

Your statement is illogical. First, I am not a “Romanist”, but a Catholic. Second, “most” Protestants? So, now it is only “most” Protestants not all? That right there means no Protestant sect could be part of the universal Church for they can’t possibly hold the universal faith. And, regarding what “most” Protestants “affirm” about “a” Holy Catholic Church: 1) it isn’t “a” Holy Catholic Church. By necessity it must be THE Holy Catholic Church since Christ only founded ONE Church. 2) What “most” Protestants affirm about their own interpretations of things they are not qualified to define is meaningless.

You might not like it, but that’s the way it is. It won’t change either.

[Morgana]

I have heard of these guys. Michael Dimond and his brother Peter. They know their apologetics but have no idea what their game is.

[Morgana]

Protestants and economists are a lot a like in that either can agree on anything.

[imardmd1]

You might not like it, but that’s the way it is. It won’t change either.

Yes, I've heard your thesis for many times over many years, and considering the underlying topic audience, I will not here continue to challenge.

But your point is also consistent with mine--that there exists no visible earthly catholic/universal overarching human supervisory function possessing authority and power to dictate to each and every local New Testament assembly professing fealty to The Christ of The Bible.

But thanks for your opinion. It is still up for debate.

[vladimir998]

There is only one Church founded by Christ. No Protestant sect possesses any authority. And yes, there is a visible earthly authority. It just isn’t found in any Protestant sect.

[imardmd1]

There is only one Church founded by Christ. No Protestant sect possesses any authority. And yes, there is a visible earthly authority. It just isn’t found in any Protestant sect.

Narrowing this to "Roman Catholic Church" automatically makes this logically an oxyymoronic malapropism of social reality. Sorry for your lack of spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:13-14).

The Reformers left a hostile religious environment, came to America, founded a nation of religious tolerance, and defended it with their honor, their possessions, and their blood. Now, through the window of tolerance, your cohorts and the Muslims have come, and made great progress in destroying it, the first nation to be founded by displacing the rule of kings through introducing New Testament Biblical precepts of government.

Don't be surprised if your point of view meets flat-out rejection by the descendents of the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Foxites, the Huguenots, the Anglicans (Episcopals and Methodists), the Baptists, the Mennonites and Amish, Lutherites, and Swedenborgians, as well as the sons of Judah, and also the remnant of the original savage decadents who freely roamed the land before a Biblical hegemony, a democratic republic, was instituted .

This topic is about Religion and Culture, as well as Catholic (as an adjective modifying a proper noun). Don't complain if the material I submitted addresses that portion of acceptable comment on FR. However, I do accept that your riposte follows the pre-Vatican II old line.

Ironically, I do have a regular friendly relationship with a pro-SPXX adherent, and we usually stir up a storm when we get together. Maybe he'll finally be won over, after viewing the current aspects of Romanism critically. So I keep on working with him. (I used to work for him.) Maybe I can get him to walk it back past the ante-Nicene patristics and "apostolic fathers" to see again what a panorama of autonomous real New Testament local churches ought to be like.

[vladimir998]

“Narrowing this to “Roman Catholic Church” automatically makes this logically an oxyymoronic malapropism of social reality.”

You’re the one doing it. I am talking about the Catholic Church. I never mentioned the “Roman Catholic Church” in that regard. I recognize that “Roman Catholic Church” is essentially a Protestant phrase which the Catholic Church uses only in the modern era in regard to herself when dealing with non-Catholics who have appropriated the phrase in regard to her. I’m a Catholic, not a “Roman Catholic”. My catechism is the Catechism of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the “Roman Catholic Church”. It’s amusing that you base your reasoning on my supposed usage of a phrase I actually don’t use.

“Sorry for your lack of spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:13-14).”

So you’re sorry that I supposedly lack spiritual discernment and you say that after claiming you’re right because I don’t use a phrase you apparently assume I use? I think you’re the one who lacks discernment of all kinds.

“The Reformers left a hostile religious environment, came to America, founded a nation of religious tolerance, and defended it with their honor, their possessions, and their blood.”

Actually none of the Reformers came here. They were all dead decades before then. It was Protestants who created the “hostile religious environment” they themselves fled from. The Puritans fled Anglican England, for instance. Yep, Protestants fled Protestant England. Protestants were persecuting Protestants. Also, there was little religious toleration in colonial America except for a few havens like Pennsylvania founded by Quakers who were tired of Anglican persecution. Sadly Quakers were sometimes ridiculed and persecuted in Pennsylvania by the very Protestants they gave safe harbor to. Typical.

“Don’t be surprised if your point of view meets flat-out rejection by the descendents of the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Foxites, the Huguenots, the Anglicans (Episcopals and Methodists), the Baptists, the Mennonites and Amish, Lutherites, and Swedenborgians, as well as the sons of Judah, and also the remnant of the original savage decadents who freely roamed the land before a Biblical hegemony, a democratic republic, was instituted .”

Quite frankly it doesn’t really matter to me what that collection of religious sects you just mentioned believes since I don’t expect most people to believe the truth. Also, I can’t take anyone who lumps together “Lutherites” and Swedenborgians on that same plain as if they’re both just mainstream Protestant groups. First of all, there’s no such thing as “Lutherites”. The correct term is “Lutherans”. Learn it. Second, the Swedenborgians are a bizarre sect - oh, they have a nice cathedral with purple tinted windows and a nice collection of medieval art in Bryn Athyn - but they are still a bizarre sect.

“Ironically, I do have a regular friendly relationship with a pro-SPXX adherent,...”

No, you don’t. There’s no such thing as SPXX. Perhaps you mean SSPX? It helps to know what you’re talking about.

“Maybe I can get him to walk it back past the ante-Nicene patristics and “apostolic fathers” to see again what a panorama of autonomous real New Testament local churches ought to be like.”

I don’t think you’re up to the task if you can’t get the most basic things correct - and so far you haven’t gotten them right.