As your kind and long-suffering blogger, when you leave comments here, I ask that you consider the following:
(1) In referring to that group of Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome (regardless of rite or local tradition), let us use the generic term “Catholic” (capitalized), according to the common English usage (even if, theologically speaking, you find your own communion to be as “catholic” as the communion of Rome, more “catholic” than this communion, or even the sole “catholic church” of the Creed).
- When referring to the notion of catholic Christianity in a broad sense, as encompassing not only Rome’s communion but also Chalcedonian Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, Old Catholics, or Anglo-Catholics, it would be helpful to use the uncapitalized word “catholic.” (A good description of broad Christian catholicity is the following: “credally orthodox, sacramental, liturgical, episcopal, believes in a complete and lasting change of the elements at Communion and believes in an infallible church.“).
(2) In referring to those Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome who worship according to the Latin Rite and belong canonically to the Church of Rome, let us use the terms “Roman Catholic” or “Latin Catholic.” Please do not use the term “Roman Catholic” with general reference to those Christians in communion with Rome, for the sake of peace and Christian charity.
- There are other catholic Christians who worship according to the Western/Latin tradition, but are not in communion with Rome: “Old Catholics” (of the Utrecht communion, or the Polish National Catholic Church in the USA), “Anglo-Catholics” (high church Anglicans either in the official Canterbury communion or one of the continuing Anglican-type bodies), and “Western Rite Orthodox” (mostly within the jurisdictions of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), not to mention various sorts of “independent Catholics”.
(3) In referring to those Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome who worship according to a non-Latin or non-Roman Rite and belong canonically to one of the other sui juris Churches in communion with Rome, let us use the general term “Eastern Catholic” (unless you are referring to one of the specific traditions, such as Melkite, Ukrainian, Armenian, Syro-Malabar, etc.). For Catholics who worship according to the Byzantine tradition, the terms “Byzantine Catholic” or “Greek Catholic” are acceptable.
(4) In referring to those Christians who belong to the communion of the 15 autocephalous Chalcedonian Churches including Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and Russia, let us use the generic term “Orthodox” (even if, theologically speaking, you find your own communion to be as “orthodox” or more “orthodox” than this communion, or even the only fully “orthodox church” of Christendom).
- Another acceptable general term for these Christians is “Eastern Orthodox” (although there are a handful of Western Rite Orthodox Christians who might object to this term applied to themselves), which also becomes necessary another communion of churches, commonly called the “Oriental Orthodox” (Non-Chalcedonian), enters the conversation.
- Some Eastern Catholics are wont to refer to themselves as “Orthodox in Communion with Rome,” a description which many Orthodox Christians find dubious and inaccurate at best. It might be helpful, for the sake of peace, to avoid this terminology as much as possible, unless the concept can be debated in a respectful and irenic manner.
- When referring to a general notion of Christian credal orthodoxy, it would be helpful to use the uncapitalized word “orthodox.”
(5) For the sake of peace and Christian charity, let us avoid the following sorts of terminology (when writing in our own words; exceptions can be made for historical documents): “Roman Catholic” (referring generally to Christians in communion with Rome, and especially in reference to those of non-Roman liturgical/theological traditions), “Romans”, “Papists,” “Latins”, “Western schismatics/heretics”, “Eastern/Greek/Oriental dissidents/schismatics”, “Photians”, “Byzantines”, “Monophysites” (with reference to the contemporary Oriental Orthodox).
Please try your best to adhere to these general guidelines. I am not trying to impose some sort of “politically correct” speech, or Orwellian Newspeak, on anybody. I am simply trying to make the combox conversations as smooth, peaceful, charitable, and fruitful as possible.
Did I forget anything?
Revised: March 25, 2008
Eirenikon 
Wow, thank you very much, Eirenikon. This is very generous and very much appreciated.
God Bless.
The issue of nomenclature is not new. Emperor Theodosius II tackled the matter when he made Christianity the official religion of the realm in 438 AD. From the Codex Theodosianus XVI.1.2:
It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.
This, of course, echoes Constantine’s decree granting freedom of worship to Catholic Christians and to the Catholic Church, alone (Eusebius 10,5).
I think that the emperor that the preceding commenter has in mind was Theodosius I, and that the date was 379.
Peter II was Patriarch of Alexandria from 373 to 380; Damasus pope from 366 to 384.
I’m assuming that you are asking us not to refer to all Eastern Orthodox Christian with the blanket label of “Byzantines,” and not forbidding us to use the word Byzantine itself, as in “The Byzantine Catholic Church is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.”
Kevin,
You’re right that I should have included “Byzantine Catholic” as a proper term, as it is the official name of the Ruthenian Church in the United States. I wonder: Do any other Eastern Catholics use it? Could it be regarded as a generic term for Catholics using the Byzantine Rite (Melkites, Ukrainian, Romanian, Russian, etc.)
I really hope I didn’t give the impression that I’m “forbidding” anything. I won’t automatically zap anyone for using “forbidden” words (unless someone is really being abusive or nasty, which I haven’t seen yet). If anything, it’s a bit of a friendly admonishment.
Fair and appreciated though I don’t concede exclusive use of Catholic to the holy Roman Church. It can get awkward when talking about that whole communion which of course is more than the Roman Rite (Roman Riters are 98 per cent of it).
Eastern Catholic is a good catch-all for such churches that are not Roman Rite, including Greek Catholics (European name)/Byzantine Catholics (yes, it’s generic for all such) and others.
Reminds me of my usage:
Catholic: credally orthodox, sacramental, liturgical, episcopal, believes in a complete and lasting change of the elements at Communion and – the deciding difference with liturgical Protestantism when all else seems equal – believes in an infallible church. Well-known differences with it – the Protestants’ women clergy and gay marriage – are signs of this big underlying difference.
Roman Catholic: all of the above, under the Pope.
Orthodox (large O): ‘the communion of the 15 autocephalous Chalcedonian Churches’ (Catholic, not under the Pope).
Western Orthodox: Mirror of ‘Eastern Catholic’.
Oriental Orthodox: The non-Chalcedonian Eastern communion.
Anglican: your church’s bishops are invited to Lambeth.
Old Catholic: in the Utrecht communion.
Can we refer to members of “ecclesial communities” as “Prots” or “Protties”? ;)
(kidding.. kidding..)
I think I’ll post a version of this on my blog. Hopefully this template will spread to other “Eastern” blogs.
#6 – Young Fogey: In principle I agree with your broader use of the word “Catholic”, but practically speaking, given the narrow focus of this blog, I like the simple terms “Catholic” for “in communion with Rome” and “Orthodox” for “Chalcedonians not in communion with Rome.” I also like your other definitions … I will amend my post to reflect some of these points.
#7 – Chris: Yes, not only are those terms allowed but they are actually encouraged! (Kidding as well!)
I appreciate the mention of the PNCC. A lot of folks miss us on their radar. Thank you.
While we are split off from Utrecht, I would offer that your “catholic” definition would more encompass the practices of the PNCC as well as certain of the more orthodox churches in Utrecht – the Polish Catholic Church for instance – than the Utrecht Communion as a whole.
That said, how to account for those portions of Utrecht that are less than orthodox in their life as a Church? Do they fit the definition in fact, but not in practice? A debate that will go on for a long time I think.
“Roman Catholic: all of the above, under the Pope.”
I hate to disagree with you, youngfogey, but this is precisely what is at issue. Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. The proper term for the whole of the church in communion with Rome is the Catholic Church.
It is a common mistake in the West to use Roman Catholic Church for the whole church because in the West the eastern churches are not well known. So, while it is a common error, it doesn’t make sense to reherse that error on a blog dedicated to Catholic-Orthodox discussion when Eastern Catholics are a major issue of the discussion.
youngfogey: your usage of “catholic” may be fine for lower case catholic. The idea of defining Catholic as you have comes from the Branch Theory of Anglicanism which holds that the Anglicans, some Lutherans, Catholic and Orthodox all make up one single Catholic Church. Neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize this theory, so it is kind of moot.
Deacon Jim
nice to see a member of the PNCC taking part here. There is not a lot that we outside the US or Poland know about your Church so I hope you don’t mind me asking a few questions. I have heard that the PNCC has acquired doctrinal differences since its inception which widen the gap between it and the RC Church (I use the term advisedly given the PNCC’s origin within the ambit of the Latin Church). Specifically, I have been told that your Church does not hold that eternal damnation is a possibility for mankind, and that you have widened the list of Sacraments to include the preached Word of God. I have also been told that ecumenical diaklogue in view of full corporate reunion is happening and is showing promising signs. Since I only have oral authority on both these points I wonder if you could confirm or deny them, and in any case enlighten myself and other readers? Happy Easter!
Father:
Not to speak for Deacon Jim but:
Denial of the possibility of eternal damnation was one of a few heretical views of the PNCC’s founding Prime Bishop, Franciszek Hodur, even though he was an Old Catholic bishop (the PNCC was Old Catholic from 1907 until a few years ago) and they were orthodox on those things. I think he also held some Christological heresy or other (a modalist view of the Trinity?). But he was always counterbalanced by the conservatism of his church’s members (Poles tend to be that way – for years PNCC priests simply did the Tridentine Mass in Polish with slight changes). So I don’t think that’s what they teach now.
They do include the hearing of the Word of God among the sacraments (and consider baptism and confirmation one sacrament) but that’s not heretical nor as radical or innovative as it seems: the mediæval church tended to count any action of the church as a sacrament; the modern number seven wasn’t settled on until a little later (by the 1500s).
The biggest problem with them doctrinally now is they’re like Episcopalians when it comes to the Sacrament of Confession: they have it but don’t require it of adults; they do general absolution at every Mass (whereas orthodox Catholics believe the absolution at Mass is only a blessing that doesn’t absolve mortal sins).
Dialogue with Rome picked up understandably under the late Pope John Paul II, a Pole. Understandable considering how small the PNCC is and that one of their main original reasons to exist – the language difference with the dominant Irish in the American Roman Catholic Church – no longer exists. Both sides are American.
They’re obviously part of the Latin Church – all their saints and popular devotions come from Rome. In fact they commemorate St Josaphat, a martyr for the Pope, even though on paper they’re non-papal in principle, simply because he’s somewhat popular in Polish piety.
But with four generations or so of members they do have a distinctive church culture nothing to do with doctrine that’s very different from RC: their discipline on clerical marriage is like the Episcopalians (the ordained may marry and they have married bishops) and – very important to the PNCC – parishes own their own property (a defence they adopted against hostile Irish RC bishops in the 1800s).
So reunion probably won’t happen at least any time soon.
A small but very real church in many ways orthodox indeed.
Its church services are like nice conservative Novus Ordo with altar girls.
AFAIK they have no religious orders such as of monks or nuns.
Also:
The PNCC is an American church founded by immigrants not a Polish one. They did start a church in Poland later but it’s tiny.
What term for the Church of the East? Also called Assyrian Church of the East, or pejoratively called the Jacobites (correct me here, I may be off)
Also historically commonly called “Nestorians.”
Would you say they fall under the “catholic” umbrella?
There is an Eastern Catholic church who finds her origins here, the Chaldeans.
Young Fogey
thanks for the very full information. I would of course still be interested in seeing it complemented by reports from PNCC members themselves. I agree with you more or less about the sacraments. The number seven is a medieval creation and the list was standardised as you say only late and with much hesitation. In fact the way that scholastic theologians struggle to apply the categories of Aristotelian hylomorphism (matter/form distinction) to a sacrament like marriage (with its western juridical definition) lends support to the view that the word “sacrament” cannot be considered univocal in its dogmatic usage. Indeed I understand that negotiations between Rome and the non-Chalcedonian Churches has made huge progress in spite of the fact that the latter apparently do not include the same seven in their list (does anyone have more specific information on this?) The orthodox Churches have the same seven as us, but most historians of theology would recognise that that is a result of Catholic influence in the post-byzantine period (it is interesting to note that the Orthodox view of mariage as sacramental in view of the rite rather than as a mere contract is easier to tally with the inclusion of marriage in the list of sacraments). If we accept that the notion of a sacrament involves operation ex opere operato (with apologies for the Western juridical term but I think it sums up what is more or less the common understanding of both East and West), then I for one have to struggle to include the reaching of the Word within its scope. However, I agree that the matter is not so problematic as it may seem to some.
Given the understanding now that the Assyrians weren’t really Nestorians I’d put them under the catholic umbrella and under the catch-all Eastern churches with the Orthodox and the Oriental communion.
The Jacobites or more properly the Syrian Church are in the Oriental communion.
I can’t criticize the use of the term ‘Roman Catholic’ too much because some prelates use it in official documents. I do, however, dislike it intensely and consider it inaccurate and misleading. It was a term invented by High Anglicans to denigrate Catholics as somehow foreign. I am an English Catholic and am proud to be so. The blood of martyrs to this ecclesial communion runs in my veins and I find Anglican’s calling themselves ‘catholic’ irritating in the extreme. I cannot and will not accept they are cathoic in any sense. The Orthodox Church is, of course, quite a different matter and I pray earnestly for the day when a truly universal ‘Orthodox-Catholic’ Church exists
Fr. Paul,
You’re welcome.
In general, and I have commented about this in a few different places, a lot of what is known about the PNCC (outside the PNCC) comes via word of mouth and is partly formed by a lot of the anti-PNCC rhetoric of the early to mid-1900’s, or by misunderstandings of Bishop Hodur’s thoughts.
A study of Hodur’s writing for instance shows no negation of the possibility of eternal damnation (for instance his sermons touch on this quite a bit). That said, he did take an anthropological view of certain teachings like hell. They were meant to elicit a response, while at the same time they did not negate the terrible consequences for those who reject Christ. I really cannot do it justice here – it’s just a sound bite.
Luckily the PNCC has a vast archive of books and writings available to all. We are also in the process of developing and publishing an Encyclopedia of the PNCC which will pull together a vast amount of the information from the archives.
To answer your specific questions:
I have heard that the PNCC has acquired doctrinal differences since its inception which widen the gap between it and the RC Church
Along with other Old Catholics the PNCC rejected the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. We count Baptism and Confirmation as one sacrament (a continuum) and consider the Word of God a sacrament (I always liken it to basic sacramental theology – a physical means by which God’s grace is conveyed). On marriage, we consider the priest or bishop to be the minister of the sacrament (not the couple). This is why deacons cannot perform marriages in the PNCC. Deacons, priests, and bishops may marry. We have a more Orthodox understanding of eternal life (hell is a terrible possibility, and we hope for everyone’s eventual salvation, but that doesn’t preclude personal choice against God) as well as our understanding of Original Sin (a state of sinfulness in the world – which we are born into – not a hereditary sin per se). On confession – yes – general absolution at every Holy Mass. Children (over age 7) are required to go to private auricular confession and it is available for adults as well – but not a stated requirement for adults.
As to ecumenical dialog, we have an active dialog with the Catholic Church. We of course all pray for full corporate reunion, but are practical about the matter. Many of the talks surround issues in particular locales – areas of misunderstanding between parishes. On larger issues the next dialog will tackle marriage and the issue of Godparents. As with the Orthodox Church the issue of primacy will be the long term issue. Another will be the issue of Catholic clergy who have come over to the PNCC – clergy we will not abandon as part of any process.
The two Churches understandings are spelled out in Journeying Together in Christ: The Report of the Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic Dialogue (1984-1989) and Journeying Together in Christ – The Journey Continues: The Report of the Polish National Catholic Roman Catholic Dialog (1989-2002). Both are available from the PNCC or the USCCB.
As with the Orthodox, Oriental Churches, etc. the Church recognizes our Orders, Eucharist, Unction. The Catholic Church does not see any issue with the Sacrament of the Word.
Liturgically we have three Rites of the Holy Mass – Contemporary (a more solemnized version of Novus Ordo), Traditional – basically Tridentine but in English, and a Rite developed by Bishop Hodur (almost exactly Tridentine but with additional scriptural references throughout). All parishes have Exposition and Benediction at the end of High Holy Mass on the first Sunday of the month. Some parishes have Vespers on Sundays. Parishes also provide a different array of seasonal devotions (Stations, Bitter Lamentations, Marian, Rosary, Sacred Heart, Precious Blood).
The Polish Catholic Church is a sister Church. The PNCC proper consists of the Church in the United States and Canada as well as a small Church is Norway.
That’s the mile high overview. May we all share in the joy of Christ’s resurrection. Alleluia.
Deacon Jim
thanks so much. I was indeed all too aware that all I knew of your Church was by word of mouth from RCs who, while often not hostile, saw your Church merely as a quaint and curious epiphenomenon born of intra-Catholic socio-cultural infighting. So it is good to have an overview of the truly theological issues involved.
The first stage of ecumenical discussion has to be getting to know each other in a way which avoids convenient tags and the distortions which come from polemic, or confessional apologetics more concerned with “victory” over the other side than with true representation of their views. Where I live I am often bemused by the fact that the Orthodox majority, in the rare cases where it does not live in blissful ignorance of the Catholic Church, understands it in a crudely charicatured manner. Then again, so many Catholics think that the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith is basically antinomianism, or that Orthodoxy is just stubborn dissidence. Not only are such charicatures damaging to ecumenism and to christian coexistence in charity, they often also lead to a distortion of our own faith born of reaction to the perceived errors of the other side. On the Catholic side this often seems to mean that we unconsciously take a “by works alone” attitude to salvation, or worship authority for its own sake. (I will leave it to readers from other churches to seek out corresponding born-of-polemic distortions in their own theological subconscious!) So we have work to do in getting to know (and maybe even really like) each other as we are in fact. It is nice to think that in our own small way here we are doing just that. Thenks to Eirenikon for providing us with a virtual meeting place and the opportunity to grow in mutual knowledge and understanding.
Fr. Paul
Thank you as well. I would say that our dialogs have focused in large measure on the get-to-know-you, let’s understand each other, type of dialog. That has been helpful and productive. I appreciate this getting-to-know you moment and this forum for providing that opportunity.
Dcn. Jim
“Thanks to Eirenikon for providing us with a virtual meeting place and the opportunity to grow in mutual knowledge and understanding.”
My pleasure, Father Paul. I wish I had more time to post. Thank you all for commenting!
let me add one more preferred distinction in nomenclature:
Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic–in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Eastern Orthodox–Churches in Communion with Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
Oriental Orthodox– Churches of the Miaphysite Union.
Church of the East Assyrian
The Assyrian Church of the East has been called Nestorian. The remains of this great Persian Church descend from the Christian Church that embraced Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia outside of Roman Imperial jurisdiction. During its long status as an Islamic Dhimmi, the Assyrian Church of the East was reduced to a small number of persecuted Assyrians. The Church then suffered from a great schism during which half its members and clergy united with Rome to become the Chaldean Catholic Church.
The Muslim Turks slaughtered over a third of the Assyrian population in the early 20th century.
In 1994, Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV and Pope John Paul II signed a Common Christological Declaration in the Vatican. The statement affirms that Catholics and Assyrians are “united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God…” and envisages broad pastoral cooperation between the two churches, especially in the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.
In November 1996 Mar Dinkha IV and Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael I Bidawid met in Southfield, Michigan, and signed a Joint Patriarchal Statement that committed their two churches to working towards reintegration and pledged cooperation on pastoral questions such as the drafting of a common catechism, the setting up of a common seminary in the Chicago-Detroit area, the preservation of the Aramaic language, and other common pastoral programs between parishes and dioceses around the world.
More recent gatherings have committed the two Churches to working even more closely.
Although the Assyrians accept only the first two ecumenical councils, recent ecumenical discussions held under the auspices of the Pro Oriente foundation have concluded that in substance the faith of the Assyrian Church is consistent with the Christological teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (451).
In mid-1997 it was announced that the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syrian Orthodox Church had agreed to establish a bilateral theological dialogue. As a gesture to foster better relations with the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Holy Synod decided in 1997 to remove from the liturgy all anathemata directed against others.
Interesting discussion on the PNCC. I’ve heard a few other things by ‘word of mouth’ and maybe Deacon Jim can further educate me. I understand the misunderstanding as to PNCC universalism comes from their strong rejection of Jansenism (long unpopular among the Polish community). I also understand that while the PNCC does not ordain women to the diaconate, they consider this a discipline and not a doctrine and that they leave artifical contraception to the private judgment of married couples.
Also, is there not a pastoral understanding between the Catholic and PNCC that they will provide pastoral care for each other’s members when they are in situations where they have no access to their own community, without a demand that the individual affilate with the pastoring community? (or, to put it in crude terms, if a PNCC lady retires from Pennsylvania to Florida where there is no PNCC parish, she can go to the Catholic Church and commune, confess and be annoited there without ‘converting.’
[…] if you are new to this blog, please take a look at my post on Church Nomenclature. Or, if you have been posting here a while, it might not hurt to refresh your memory. This is not […]
Eirenekon editor,
Thank you for your response and sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.
I understand your insistence for the enforcement of the church nomenclature but I would like to a expand briefly on the direction of my earlier commenting which I found somewhat echoed here in this combox by the Young Fogey in granting the term “Catholic” exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church.
By granting this term unquestioningly, one unwittingly makes an ontological claim for the Catholic Church(“that is, the communion of Churches recognizing the headship of the Bishop of Rome” as you stated earlier). “The Catholic Church” is a highly descriptive term which says something exclusive about this communion and this term, “The Catholic Church” I could argue(if given room to make the argument) belongs exclusively to the Orthodox Church.
Would it be fair to state that ecumenism is to religion what political correctness is in the political realm? In other words, is it possible that under the auspices of ecumenism each of the traditions are bleached of their particular distinctiveness? Wanting to be fair and equitable for the sake of Christian charity do we not under ecumenism in a sense create a new religious order which is a blend and an amalgalation of all the elements present and assimilated? There can be no vacuum here. If I take, let’s say, “Orthodox Belief” on Subject x and then blend it with “Catholic Belief”(see, I did it! I didn’t say Roman Catholic!) on Subject x do I not come out with something other than Subject x?
Forgive me for being a bit forward but if I may push my point a bit further I would add that our homes have very delineated boundaries with doors and locks on the doors and windows and all such things to serve a very useful purpose. They keep out that which is not desired to be within. To allow that which they keep without to enter in without question is to allow the entering in of that which may(or may not) be harmful to those residing within.
Further, in my interaction with people(I am not speaking here in a “religious” sense strictly) my being, my person, is affected by those I have as friends. Their being and person affects and changes me consciously and unconsciously. It is impossible for it to be otherwise.
What I am trying to convey(simply) is that it is wise to beforehand come to consensus as to what each side holds to be true about a given issue(such as the Immaculate Conception) thereby respecting each side’s distinctivesand not creating confusion where we meant to created peace. But peace, it must be remembered, is born out of Truth. We(each side on every issue) may not all be right.
Sophocles
I do not have any problem with being called a RC (I think it’s what we call synecdoche – using the part to name the whole) but I think we both ought to make an effort to conform to our host’s wishes. A few weeks ago Dr James Likoudis took me to task – in his usual manner which combines intellectual rihour with great courtesy) over at De Unione ecclesiarum for admitting the term. I will allow myself the indulgence of quoting my own reply to him:
“in using the term RC, I hoped to make it clear that I do not regard the Orthodox Church a not being catholic, and at the same time show courtesy to those who believe that the Orethodox Church is the Catholic Church. In fact, I agree may have been over scrupulous in this respect. After all, in talking of the Orthodox Church, it is not as if I thereby express a conviction that the Catholic Church is not orthodox. In general I think think that…it is better to use the terms by which each Church generally designates itself, as Eirenikon proposes…”
I think that we understand that for you only the Orthodox Church is Catholic, but we understand to that conforming to convention does not preclude your maintaining that only the Orthodox Church is catholic in the proper sense, just as I believe that the Catholic Church is the most fully orthodox. In an analogous manner, I allow myself to speak of “the Church of England” (without recourse to such insulting and unnecessary expedients as putting inverted commas round “church” or using the term “so called”) although I do not in fact believe that the CofE is a church in the fullest sense..
You state your conviction that it is wrong for the orthodox Church to engage in ecumenism. It would be ironic in the extreme if a blog dedicated to dialogue were to outlaw your voice. I doubt very much if Eirenikon would wish to imitate the intolerance of the politically correct or the dogmatically liberal so depressingly familiar to us all. I would certainly not encourage him to do so, and I personally think that I have much to say in reply to those who – for reasons which I in part understand – are recalcitrant with regard to ecumenism, both those in my own communion and those in yours. Perhaps the best course of action would be to start a seperate discussion on this fundamental topic, if our gracious host ever feels he has the time and energy to devote to posting on so huge a subject.
However, if someone’s procedure is to chip in on every discusion of more specific and limited topics with a contestation of the whole basis of our dialoging at all, then I think it will risk rapidly become tedious and wearisome to those of us who wish to engage in what we consider more positive and potentially fruitful lines of discussion. Ecumenism is indeed only honest and real if it recognises the existing differences without trying to paper over the cracks. But those of us who believe in its ends and are searching for a appropriate methods of achieving them are entitled to do so without being continuously subject to harassment from those intellectually committed to the kind of exclusivism one sees in very many other places in cyber-space, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Please note that I am not accusing you of practicing such harassment, but the danger needs to be pointed out.
Perhaps the best course of action would be to start a seperate discussion on this fundamental topic, if our gracious host ever feels he has the time and energy to devote to posting on so huge a subject.
Thanks, Fr Paul, for your very helpful reply to Sophocles. All I can say is, “Ditto.”
As I said before, Sophocles is more than welcome to post here and speak his mind. The whole nomenclature bit is not about enforcing some kind of PC thought control; it’s about having substantive conversations that don’t get bogged down in side skirmishes about, well, precisely, nomenclature.
(Or, perhaps, I should encourage people to use whatever terminology they like for the other side – “Latins”, “Greeks”, “Papists”, “Oriental dissidents”, etc. – and we could see how long peaceful, dispassionate, substantive dialogue would last!)
In the near future, I will consider opening up a discussion about the concept of ecumenism.
Father Paul and Eirienekon Editor,
Thank you. Very well said. I do not intend to make myself a nuisance here or anywhere on the blogosphere where such discussions take place.
Again, I am new here and am content with just raising the issue of Ecumenism, especially for those whose convictions are not well formed and such forums may confuse them.
As we all know, many of us went through much soul searching and anguish of heart to make the choice to rest in our respective communions. Forums such as this one(please note I am not implying it is the goal of this blog or its author to foster confusion) may, instead of building unity, create confusion among those who simply need to rest and pray.
So if the future I will check in as I’m able and when pertinent I will add my voice to the discussion.
Again, thank you for your grace and understanding.
I for one do not mind so much being called Roman Catholic. I draw the line, though, at “Roman” or “Romanist,” as it always makes me wonder whether this toga makes my tush look big.
“Papist” strikes me as unutterably silly, especially coming from an Orthodox. I can’t help wondering whether those Orthodox who use terms like “papist” and “papism” realize how much they sound like Jack Chick. The irony is delicious.
Eirenikon Editor,
Do you have an email? If you don’t want to post it could you drop me a line at jamesg042(at)gmail(dot)com? Thanking you in advance.
James G
Eirenekon editor,
Part II of my essay:
http://molonlabe70.blogspot.com/2008/07/response-to-dr-carson-thoughts-on_27.html