That is crap. You specifically declared “If they call themselves Catholic they are Catholic.”
However thank you for admitting that the menbers and leaders of the Serbian Orthodox Church don’t consider themselves Catholics.
That was made in response to a general claim about churches calling themselves Catholic, not specifically about Serbs (it was actually said about Episcopalians). You’re taking that quote out of context.
I admit no such thing. I don’t know to what degree they apply the word to themselves, but it’s immaterial. Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole declares itself Catholic, and unless you can provide a cite that the Serbian Orthodox Church rejects that identification you don’t have an argument.
Why can’t you just admit you didn’t know the word “Catholic” wasn’t specific to the Roman Catholic Church?
They consider themselves to be the real, authentic, Church, and “catholic” in the sense that they’re universal. But here in the real world, “Catholic” is usually used to refer to those churches that accept the primacy of the pope, and “Roman Catholic” to the Latin Rite or Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, with “Eastern Catholic” to refer to those churches/rites that accept the primacy of the Pope but are autonomous (like the Ethiopian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, and so on. They’re all lumped in as "Catholic churches, because they recognize the primacy of the Pope.
Then you have the Eastern Orthodox churches; those churches which accept the first seven ecumenical councils but don’t recognize the primacy of the pope: the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church, and so on. Each of these churches are autocephalous.
Then, there are the so called “Oriental Orthodox” churches; those churches that only accept the first three ecumenical councils and don’t accept the primacy of the pope: the Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Indian Orthodox.
Then there’s the Assyrian Church, which is Nestorian.
Lumping all these churches together as “Catholic” isn’t commonly done, and isn’t smart to do, because that downplays both the real doctrinal differences between them and the oftentimes negative feelings the churches have for each other.
I don’t like giving the RCC ownership of the word “Catholic.” You are correct that, as far as common usage goes, the word is almost always used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean Eastern Orthodox isn’t technically “catholic.” That word is not synonomous with recognizing the authority of the Papacy.
Since the Serbs don’t consider themselves Catholic, as anyone who’s heard them talk about Catholics can testify to, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
You’d be on far firmer ground arguing that when use the term “American” it should apply not just to citizens of the US but to Mexicans, Canadians, Venezuelans, Chileans etc. which you yourself clearly don’t do.
Cite?
I actually laughed at this.
You might as well demand a cite showing that Israelis don’t consider themselves Palestinians.
On second thought, the above example isn’t so hot since Israeli Jews(or at least the people who became Israeli Jews) used to call themselves Palestinian.
On that note, I’m sure by your logic not only is it wrong to restrict the term “American” to US citizens, but we should refer to Israelis as Palestinians as well. After all, PA doesn’t “own” the word.
That’s a lot of noise just to avoid having to admit you don’t have a cite.
It’s “catholic”, but it’s not “Catholic” (and, in fact, every church that recites the Nicene Creed says it belongs to “one holy, catholic and Apostolic church”, but you’d certainly get looked at funny if you called the Baptists “Catholics”). And the RCC doesn’t have ownership of the word Catholic…the Maronites, for instance, do too. It’s just, in Western Europe and America, most of the Catholics you run into are Roman Rite Catholics.
But the fact remains that in English (and in most European languages), the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox and so on, are generally referred to as “Eastern Orthodox” (and whatever the equivalent is in the other European languages), and did call a Serbian a Catholic, he’d probably correct you, because he’d refer to himself as Serbian Orthodox, and not Catholic. It’s not about giving the RCC ownership of the word Catholic; it’s that in Europe and America, the RCC already has such ownership, and it seems like you’re being unnecessarily pedantic and not reflecting common usage.
They are also referred to as “Catholic Orthodox” with a capital C.
I admit that I am being pedantic (this is the Dope) and not reflecting common usage.
IMO, you are also being very belligerent about it, hijacking and threadshitting. Can it be dropped now?
Beyond pedantic, you are being unnecessarily hostile with your frequent “orders” to silence another poster.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
This post has me wondering, why a person would go out of their way to act against a whole religion, what did their practice of the Eucharist do to harm the person who would desecrate something holy to a whole group of people? What did he gain from desecrating the communion bread? His actions spoke more about him, than the Catholics he hoped to rile. Did it make him a better person? What troubled him so that he would go to such measures?
Because atheists who talk about tolerance don’t always mean it.
It’s like some of the debate on gay marriage. Celebrating the Eucharist doesn’t hurt this Meyers guy any more than gay marriage hurts Phred Phelps. But it drives some people crazy to know that, somewhere, somehow, there are people who have different opinions. And those crazy people discover they can get attention if they act offensively enough.
Regards,
Shodan
He didn’t do anything to their religion. He was making a rhetorical point about magical thinking in general.
Monavis and Shodan,
I don’t think you’re reading Myers’s motives correctly. IMO it is pretty simple- he believes that a person has the legal AND moral right to do anything they want to to a cracker. And he believes the eucharist is nothing more than a cracker. It’s true, he doesn’t care that he’s offending people. Many of the furious responses he got probably made him laugh.
In truth, even though I believe the same thing (that anyone has the legal and moral right to do anything to a cracker), I wouldn’t do it. I think it’s kind of a dick move.
But in the spectrum of morality, IMO, it’s way, way less wrong than such acts as throwing a beer can at a stray cat, telling your boss that you’re sick when you’re not, or failing to tell a cashier that she forgot to ring up that last six pack. Basically- if it’s wrong, it’s a nearly infinitesimal bit of wrongness.
In what way is PZ Myers not tolerating anybody’s free practice of religion?
Nor is he claiming that it does.
Those people are called “evangelicals.”
That would be a perfect description of Bill Donohue.
I see his motives differently.
He is trolling.
Providing he came by the Eucharist he used legitimately (I doubt he did - the RC church is particularly clear that the Host is not to be taken home, but always eaten) that’s his right, I suppose. In the same way, if I own a wooden cross I am entitled to burn it on my own property while wearing a white hood and chanting “Niggers go back to the jungle”.
It’s still pretty jerky.
Regards,
Shodan
In what sense is the consecration of the host in a Eucharistic celebration “not a ceremony”?
BTW, Dio is on target on his definition of Catholic. There are plenty of non-Roman Catholics, with a capital C. Orthodox and Anglicans to name probably the two largest Catholic groups not affiliated with Rome.
I grew up Baptist and never heard the Nicene creed recited once. The Baptists are not a Creedal denomination and you’re right, they might cop to being “catholic” but never “Catholic.”
Although I agree with Dio about the usage of Catholic, I disagree this guy wasn’t doing anything distasteful. He was being intentionally provocative and insulting to Catholics and Muslims (although I don’t know why an atheist would be disturbed about the Dawkins book). It was immature and makes no point - the reaction could have been accurately predicted.
Why do you believe putting a nail in a cracker and reenacting a hate group known for murder’s rituals are the same?
Because while Catholics tend to find his actions outrageous, unless they’re batshit insane they don’t feel physically threatened by it.
Edit: this dot . is Mohammed in 0-dimensions. Is it just like a slur filled cross burning?