norcio@afn.ifsm.umbc.edu (A. F. Norcio) (08/08/90)
In a recent posting, Yaakov Kayman strongly objected to Cindy Smith's use of the term Jewish Christian. I would like to object just as strongly to her continual use of the terms Catholic and Catholic Church. In the normal usage of the English language when one hears or sees the terms Catholic and Catholic Church, one automatically and typically thinks of those Churches that are in union with one of the major Metropolitan Sees and recognizes the Pope (Patriarch of the West, Bishop of Rome) as the Supreme Pontiff of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Specifically, these Churches include only the following: 1) The Roman Catholic Church (Latin Rite) 2) The Ambrosian Catholic Church (Latin Rite) 3) The Lyonnaise Catholic Church (Latin Rite) 4) The Coptic Orthodox Catholic Church (Alexandrian Rite) 5) The Ethiopian Catholic Church (Alexandrian Rite) 6) The Malankar Orthodox Catholic Church (Antiochene Rite) 7) The Maronite Catholic Church (Antiochene Rite) 8) The Syrian Orthodox Catholic Church (Antiochene Rite) 9) The Armenian Apostolic Catholic Church (Armenian Rite) 10) The Bulgarian Orthodox Catholic Church (Byzantine Rite) 11) The Greek Orthodox Catholic Church (Byzantine Rite) 12) The Melchite Catholic Church (Byzantine Rite) 13) The Romanian Orthodox Church (Byzantine Rite) 14) The Russian Orthodox Church (Byzantine Rite) 15) The Ruthenian Orthodox Catholic Church (Byzantine Rite) 16) The Ukrainian Catholic Church (Byzantine Rite) 17) The Chaldean Catholic Church (Chaldean Rite) 18) The Malabarese Catholic Church (Chaldean Rite) It is apparently necessary to mention specifically that this list does not include either the Anglican Church or the Anglican Rite. Cindy Smith's many postings are very misleading. First, it may well be appropriate for all Protestants, including Episcopalians/Anglicans, to consider themselves as part of the catholic (i.e., universal) church. But it is entirely inappropriate and inaccurate for any Protestant Church to consider itself as part of the Catholic Church and likewise to refer to themselves as Catholics. Further, it is clearly appropriate to state opinions. But to state opinions in such a way so as to give the impression that one is pronouncing the official position of the Catholic Church is deceptive. This is especially troublesome when the opinions are canonically incorrect as far as Catholic Church Theology is concerned. This tactic merely furthers engenders misunderstandings, animosity and harsh feelings between Catholicism and Protestantism. In addition, the Catholic Church has a long history and over its history has developed a moderately well-defined jargon in which to express theological concepts and ideas. To use terms and phrases in an uninformed way is again merely adding to the confusion of Protestants and Catholics as well. I can not imagine what the motivation is for doing this. Finally, in my opinion game-playing with words is not at all consistent with ecumenical spirit to which all Christians should be committed. [High church Anglicans use the term Catholic to refer to a somewhat broader Catholic tradition, which includes the Roman Catholic Church but is not limited to it. This wing of the church is often referred to as "Anglo-Catholic". So it is a use of the term "Catholic" that has some tradition behind it, although it's certainly a less common use than the one you are used to. Cms does identify herself as Episcopalean on a fairly regular basis, but I agree that some postings might be misleading to new readers of this group. I'll leave it to cms to decide what to do. --clh]
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (08/12/90)
There are those of us who object to the self-appellation "Catholic Church" as being entirely too much of a sales pitch. It is typical in anglican theology (and perhaps in other protestant bodies) to understand the creedal phrase "We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" as referring to the body of christians in its entirety, not to a specific denomination or hierarchy. My normal practice is to refer to the component churches directly. As far as discussions here go, the uniate churches simply don't figure much except as pretty abstract examples. Almost exclusively, we talk about Roman theology, Roman liturgy, and Roman polity. (or RC, if "Roman" offends...) I don't refer to the eastern churches solely as "Orthodox" either, for roughly the same reason. I refer to them as the Eastern churches (or occaisionally, Eastern Orthodox). Of course, there are "Catholic" churches which are "Catholic" (i.e., they are now separated from Rome), such as the Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholics in this country. I take particular exception to the following passage: >[T]he Catholic Church has a long history and over its history has developed >a moderately well-defined jargon in which to express theological concepts >and ideas. To use terms and phrases in an uninformed way is merely adding >to the confusion of Protestants and Catholics as well. I am afraid that the Roman church and its uniate sisters do not own these words; it is right and proper for protestants to ignore the Roman spin put upon them. "Catholic" (small and capital "C") has acquired a variety of meanings over the years. When an anglican uses the word, it is unreasonable to assume that he should be understood along the lines of RC dogma. -- C. Wingate + "I bind unto myself today the strong name of the Trinity + by invocation of the same mangoe@cs.umd.edu + the Three in One, and One in Three." mimsy!mangoe +
hwt@.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.40.37.1990.12894@athos.rutgers.edu> norcio@afn.ifsm.umbc.edu (A. F. Norcio) writes: > 18) The Malabarese Catholic Church (Chaldean Rite) >It is apparently necessary to mention specifically that this >list does not include either the Anglican Church or the >Anglican Rite. There is in the City of Ottawa, Canada a church which advertises in the newpaper "The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada ... professing the faith of the undivided Church as embodied in the Holy Scriptures and ... the Book of Common Prayer". I'm paraphrasing, becuase I don't have their Saturday newspaper ad to hand. Personally, I have trouble with that statement, because amongst other things, I a) don't see how they can be part of the undivided church and not accept the Pope and b) the BCP is (explicitly) not part of scripture, nor especially devinely inspired (IMHO). But if we accept churches as they name themselves, then 19) Then Anglican Catholic Church of Canada -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 |
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/20/90)
This is meant to be somewhat humorous, so make allowances. I am told I have a dry sense of humor, so you may not think it funny. Whoever posted the remarks, I am in basic sympathy, as probably most people here know. I believe it's a matter of time only until the Catholic Church shakes off its current diseases. Unfortunately, it's questionable how much will be destroyed before this happens, and how many souls will be lost. Will we see married priests? Will the American bishops go into schism? Will they ordain women? Stay tuned. The religious orders have been pretty much wrecked, I'm afraid. The Jesuits have become a Marxist organization that preaches the social gospel. As I recently said in t.r.m, the number of seminarians has declined from the high 40,000's shortly after Vatican II into the 4,000's at the present time. The orthodoxy of a number of those 4,000 is questionable (I have a number of seminarian friends who have some horror stories.) At one point about 5-10 years ago, the Catholic school closing rate was averaging one per day since the close of Vatican II. The liturgy has been pretty much destroyed. (Comments about the people wanting more changes will be greeted with utter derision and references from Michael Davies' works, in that order.) As Davies would put it, we have been treated to the spectacle of people in our churches in near bathing suit undress frolicking about in the isles, while we look in vain for crucifix, altar, or tabernacle. Mass atendance in some countries has dropped like 70%, as I recall. In places like Holland, forget about it, I'm not sure there are any Catholics left. A few dozen churches get sold in the Midwest. As any sane person would conclude after a litany of such woes, "The emperor's got no clothes!" Or, as Michael Davies quoted: They create a wilderness and call it a renewal. (Tacitus) I am speaking about Vatican II, of course. As Davies put it, if the Catholic bishops had been managers of some large corporation, they would have been fired long ago. Heck, they probably would have been thrown out of the nearest tall building after mismanagement like what we've seen. What is happening is really inexplicable. The answer, of course, to the whole mess, is a return to the Tradition of the Church. That's all we need. We don't need married priests, or advertising agencies, or priestesses, or any of that stuff. All we need is conformance to the traditional teaching of the Church. Follow God's will, and He'll bless every step. Guess we have to figure this out the hard, way, though. Wonder how many casualties we'll take in the process. Joe Buehler
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/25/90)
In article <Sep.20.03.50.03.1990.19554@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes... >Mass atendance in some countries has dropped like 70%, as I recall. In >places like Holland, forget about it, I'm not sure there are any >Catholics left. An interesting point on this, in some comments that I deleted since I'm fairly ruthless about cutting down originals, you implied the decline in church attendence was a result of Vatican II. In fact, looking at the data the decline in church attendence began in 1968 continued until the mid-70s and stopped (This is drawn from GSS data as reported in Greeley's the Catholic myth. I have not verified this, but I plan to write to Fr. Greeley to try and get the exact SPSSX programs he used in reaching his conclusions). The L.A. Times this month reported that the Catholic church posted a 2% increase in membership in the last count (I believe this represents two-year-old data, though). For comparison, most mainline Protestant denominations showed a decline on the order of 1-2%. >As Davies put it, if the Catholic bishops had been managers of some >large corporation, they would have been fired long ago. Heck, they >probably would have been thrown out of the nearest tall building after >mismanagement like what we've seen. That the church is being mismanaged, I won't argue, but that it's the direct cause of the problems you're citing, I would. What it comes down to in the end is the parish. I'm exceptionally lucky to be living in an exceptional parish, the quality of the preaching is excellant, the activities outside of mass are well-done (although the Bible study group is running into attendence problems now that the school year has begun). I have yet to see a poorly-attended Sunday mass (weekday masses are another question altogether, I must admit). I do hope this thread continues, though. It has far more potential than the "my sect is better than your sect because your sect is wrong" discussions. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info
mike@turing.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (09/26/90)
How interesting that Joe Buehler calls Catholics to a return to the "traditions of the church." How even more interesting that increased obedience is one of those traditions he so reveres. How more interestng still that he says "if the Catholic bishops had been managers of some large coroporation, they would have been fired long ago." Apparently his respect for the apostolic authority of the Catholic church's magisterium is somewhat less that one might expect. And people wonder why Reformed theology affirms that the church is "reformed and ever reforming". Joe wants a change in the Catholic church, against the authority of the Bishops and the Pope and calls it a "return to tradition". What about the apostolic authority, Joe? Isn't it an essential point of Catholic doctrine that the church has an irreplaceable authority to decide just these things Joe want to return to the pre-Vatican II state of affairs? What is going on here, Joe? Does the church have the authority you claim or not??? -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (10/01/90)
And people wonder why Reformed theology affirms that the church is "reformed and ever reforming". Joe wants a change in the Catholic church, against the authority of the Bishops and the Pope and calls it a "return to tradition". What about the apostolic authority, Joe? Isn't it an essential point of Catholic doctrine that the church has an irreplaceable authority to decide just these things Joe want to return to the pre-Vatican II state of affairs? What is going on here, Joe? Does the church have the authority you claim or not??? The Church certainly has the authority, but don't forget Church history. The bulk of the bishops either did nothing during the Arian heresy, or were outright Arians themselves. We owe absolute obedience to God alone. Not only are there times when one is not obliged to obey human superiors, there are times when one is obliged to disobey them. As a whole, neither the Church nor the Papacy can fail. In the long run, things will straighten out. In the short term, however, the clergy is being very lax. A genuine reform is needed, and that means nothing more than a return to greater adherence to the traditional norms of faiths and morals. The preservation of these norms is what the Church is all about. Joe Buehler