Early Church teachings about the Papacy and Roman See?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Early Church teachings about the Papacy and Roman See?

Post by Maria »

By the way, the OP has recently been baptized as a member of True Orthodoxy and is now known as maximus here.
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/me ... le&u=38353

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by joasia »

TedMann wrote:

Saint Leo lived in the fifth century, not the third, like Joasia said.

That's my fault. I sometimes go in the wrong direction. It's one century up, not down.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3984
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by Barbara »

I do agree with Maria about the deprecating term Papist. It smacks of English Puritans and Cromwell and that whole terrible era.
Such a bad era I can not bring myself to even study it.

I know if I were browsing around and saw a preponderance of use of that term on a particular site, I would tend to discount it
if I were an anti-Vatican II Catholic casting about for firm shores.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by joasia »

Barbara wrote:

I do agree with Maria about the deprecating term Papist. It smacks of English Puritans and Cromwell and that whole terrible era.
Such a bad era I can not bring myself to even study it.

I know if I were browsing around and saw a preponderance of use of that term on a particular site, I would tend to discount it
if I were an anti-Vatican II Catholic casting about for firm shores.

Ok. I've been avoiding using that term. But, I can't say Catholic (Katholiki-os). We are Catholic...the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

What about Papal followers?

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Early Church teachings about the Papacy and Roman See?

Post by Maria »

joasia wrote:
Barbara wrote:

I do agree with Maria about the deprecating term Papist. It smacks of English Puritans and Cromwell and that whole terrible era.
Such a bad era I can not bring myself to even study it.

I know if I were browsing around and saw a preponderance of use of that term on a particular site, I would tend to discount it
if I were an anti-Vatican II Catholic casting about for firm shores.

Ok. I've been avoiding using that term. But, I can't say Catholic (Katholiki-os). We are Catholic...the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

What about Papal followers?

I tend to call them Roman Catholics (RC) or Vatican Catholics. It shows that they separated from us and are under control of Rome or the Vatican. We alone remain the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.

Incidentally, there is a movement in the RC Church to call each other "Catholics," when they are no longer "Catholics."
For example, Catholic refers to the Unchanging Faith given by Christ to the Apostles for all times and for all peoples. How can Rome call itself "Catholic" when they believe in changing dogmas over time?

Furthermore, we are the True Orthodox Catholic Church, that is Right-Thinking and Correct-Worshipping Catholics.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Lydia
Member
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed 19 December 2012 9:44 pm
Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ex-HOCNA and searching

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by Lydia »

No Orthodox person I know would ever call himself a "Catholic." We belong to the Catholic Church, yes, but we are not Catholics.
You may argue it is linguistically correct, but it has a very specific meaning when referring not to a Church but a person.
As for the term Papist, since these people follow a Pope who is infallible ex-cathedra, it is perfectly fitting to call them Papists.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3984
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by Barbara »

But Lydia this is a term of disdain and hatred from rebellious English separatists.
What on earth is wrong with Roman Catholic ? It clarifies whom is being discussed. Only
these ones adhere to the line of Rome, so it's obvious to whom one is referring.

Joasia's 'Papal followers" is a little less of a stinging epithet.

I think Roman Catholic is simplest. There are a billion on this planet. So there has to be
a reasonable name to create instant recognition in one's audience.
Otherwise, one's points may be lost while the reader founders on which group exactly is
under discussion.

[And, I might add, daringly, from which group is the person making the statement. That is,
if I see the word Papist, I am instantly sure that it is a Protestant deriving from some firebrand, seethingly
resentful English denomination.
I wrote "demonization" at first !

I think Orthodox need to show a much superior dignity than these louts like Cromwell and the Puritans.

Post Reply