Acatholicism of the Roman Catholic Church

[Predrag Mandic]

Many years,

Having in mind what the actual term Catholic means, or shall I say what comes from when one goes into it’s Greek meaning – I would like to think for a moment about the direct opposition of the Roman Church (since the separation) to the nature of what term Catholic stands for.

Word Catholic (καθολικη) comes to us non-hellenised from two words of the cultured language of the Greeks, Katha and Holos – According to the whole. The Westerners having understood and translated this word as Universal and us – Slavs – being under all sort of different influnces from Latin to Greek and back try to say that this word means Saborna (Conciliar).

I wish to say that Roman Catholic Church can not be Catholic Church (whatever the understanding of the word is) because it has the word Roman before the word Catholic. It is like saying that only Church of Constantinople – the New Rome – is Catholic.

No, Roman Church is not Catholic Church but only a Chuch according to Rome and not according to whole. For Rome is not the whole, nor the half but only a fifth of the whole (if one goes according to the old order of the Holy Pentarchy). So, Roman Catholic Church can not be Catholic if it stands by herself and for herself for the true meaning of the Church Catholic is not whether it is of Contantinople or Jerusalem or Belgrade or Moscow, but of Christ who is the first Catholic – and of His Father – for in the true meaning of Catholic, the faith given to us is not just Orthodox but Trinitarian – thus of the whole God – the Three Persons - the teaching of the Whole Three Persons given to the whole of cosmos and not only to Rome – who even when it (Rome) was Orthodox and Rock of Orthodoxy - was such because of the influence of all and of the whole and not just of themselves – the Romans.

She is neither according to the whole, not conciliar nor universal but, rather, according to Rome, "Romciliar" and Romanic if one wants to play with words.

So, it is a contradiction in terms, it is like saying that I am Liberar Conservative or whatever one can think of in such things of a man that are selfcontradictory thus somewhat impossible – not for the sake of human abbility to play with semantics but because of human inability to play with imposibility.


How do you understand the word Catholic - and what it means to you?

[John Charmley]

Dear Predrag,

An interesting question, although it is, of course, beyond the boundaries of this forum to embark upon interfaith discussions; but your question need not mean doing that.

During this month and July, our bishop is giving a series of lectures on the undivided Church, and so I suppose that my definition would lie there - with those who accepted, and accept, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

During his lectures, the bishop reminded us of an event that occurred at the Council at Nicaea in 352, concerning Acesius, a Novatian bishop. Having invited Acesius in the hope of bringing about 'ecclesiastical harmony', the Emperor Constantine asked him whether he would agree to the Creed and to the settlement about the date of Easter. Acesius answered:

The Synod has determined nothing new, my price: for thus heretofore, even from the beginning, from the times of the Apostles, I traditionally received the definition of the Faith, and the time of the celebration of Easter.'
Constantine then asked him:

For what reason then do you separate yourself from communion with the rest of the Church?
According to the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus Acesius responded by
relating what had taken place during the persecution under Decius; and referred to the rigidness of that austere canon which declares that it is not right persons who after baptism have committed a sin, which the sacred Scriptures denominate 'a sin unto death' that they should indeed by exhorted to repentance, but were not to expect remission from the priest, but from God who is able and has authority to forgive sins.
When Acesius had finished speaking, Constantine turned to him and said:

Place a ladder, Acesius, and climb alone into heaven

So, wider than Acesius, certainly.

In Christ,

John

[Kris]

[FONT=Times New Roman]
I wish to say that Roman Catholic Church can not be Catholic Church (whatever the understanding of the word is) because it has the word Roman before the word Catholic. It is like saying that only Church of Constantinople – the New Rome – is Catholic.

Hi,

I have to point out that the term 'Roman Catholic' is one devised by Protestants, whereas the church in question had always referred to itself simply as the "Catholic Church."

Secondly, it is not entirely made up of the Roman church, but is actually a communion of over 20 different churches (the Maronites being one example).

Nevertheless, I agree with the general argument you put forth since they hold that one has to be in communion with the Roman church in order to be part of the Catholic Church (although their "two lung" approach to the Orthodox calls even this into question), and that the bishop of Rome has ultimate authority over the entire Catholic Church.

In XC,
Kris

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think it somewhat a fallacy to suggest that a qualifier on a term like 'catholic' invalidates the concept. The Church's catholicity has never been bound up in a uniform expression, or the mere transporation of one local culture's norms to another. The Ephesian Church was always distinct in many ways from the Galatian, the Slavic from the Greek. Catholicity is a reality expressed in and through locality, not in abandonment of it.

The same logic would also apply to qualifiers on 'Orthodox', but the Church has always expressed the locality of its Orthodoxy as part of its universality (catholicity).

INXC, Matthew

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Dr. Steenberg,


Catholicity is a reality expressed in and through locality, not in abandonment of it.

Thanks for explicating this truth.

I believe the point can further be stressed by understanding that the catholicity of the Church is not only expressed through the local Church (e.g. the Church of Antioch) but also finds its fullest expression on the level of the local parish, given that the faithful will find "everything needed" there.

In XC
-Athanasius

[Adrian Martin]

<omission>

[Nicolaj]

Right, it is heresy!

Amen.

Nicolaj

[M.C. Steenberg]

This is a fruitless conversation. And it is well outside the scope of this forum. Please do not carry on in this manner.

INXC, Dcn Matthew