I was watching Monk a couples months/weeks ago and there was a case where some guy had been shot by a sniper hiding out in a Dutch Catholic’s apartment. Now I knew there was a Roman Catholic, cause I think thats what I am, but I had no idea other types of Catholics existed. Was Monk just saying the girl who lived there was Dutch and Catholic, or is Dutch Catholic an actual religious practice. How many different types of Catholics are there and how are they different from one another.
another question with that has nothing to do with the above one, does anyone know a website that can give me the latin or whatever root of words we use today?
I think it’s mostly a matter of cultural differences, combined with national identity. Belief-wise, pretty much any church that calls itself “catholic” with be in line with Rome.
I don’t know, I think there’s more of a difference than that. Irish Catholics are most definately Roman Catholics. But aren’t Chaldeans Catholics but not Roman Catholics?
Dutch Catholic is one of the names given to the Old Catholics who broke with Rome (or, from their perspective, with whom Rome broke from tradition) in 1870 over the issue of Papal Infallibility.
Note that in 5-HT’s link, they refer to themselves:
Beyond that issue, there are several different rites of that part of the Catholic Church that still look to the pope as the head of the church. The biggest and best known group, of course, is the Latin Rite church, based out of Rome. However, there are other rites in fellowship with the Latin rite: Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, Malabar, and Greek Catholic, (distinguished from Greek Orthodox), and a few smaller rites. These are sometimes referred to as the Uniat rite churches because they are in union with Rome, although they do not follow the Latin Rite liturgy.
While the name Catholic has come to be applied to the Roman Church and its uniats, the use of the name is occasionally a cause for bad feelings. The Nicene Creed identifies the four Marks of the Church (in its entirety) as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Those groups who believe that they are faithfully carrying out the tradition of the Church consider themselves to be catholic (universal) in their mission. They have a valid point, but the name has been given to the church of Rome and its uniats for a long time and that usage is not going away. So when one talks about who is “Catholic,” it is important to recognize how the word is being used. It may simply be a word to distinguish one group from the organizational structures of various Orthodox, Protestant, and Anglican communions. (In this regard, the Old/Dutch Catholics get short shrift, because they are not Orthodox or Protestant and they continue to use the word “Catholic” in the name, but they are not a large enough group to get much recognition.) On the other hand, if identifying a group by the four marks of the church, nearly all of those groups should be recognized as catholic in their ministry.
The schism between the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church occurred in 1066 when the Bishop of Rome decided he was in charge of the church. The bishops who went with him, and their dioceses became the Roman Catholic church. The ones who refused to concede power to the Bishop of Rome are the Orthodox Church (may be Russian Orthodox). Both groups claim to be the true church.
Henry VIII founded the Anglican church when the Pope wouldn’t grant him another divorce.
Protestants started with Martin Luther’s reformations of the Catholic church.
There are Roman Catholics, and then (as tomndebb discusses) there are non-Roman Catholics that are “in communion with” and recognize the authority of Rome, and then there are non-Roman Catholics that are non-Roman, period. In Chicago, for example, one will encounter the Polish National Catholic Church, which seceded from Roman Catholicism for reasons discussed in the site. So if a person says they are Polish Catholic, you have to ask, “Do you mean that you are Polish(-American) and Roman Catholic, or that you are a member of the Polish National Catholic Church?”
Dragonstar, the official Orthodox/Catholic split is usually dated to 1054 (with Norman William conquering England in 1066) and the break was somewhat more involved than a simple “I’m going to be boss, now.”
Henry did not want a divorce, but an annulment (and while it was politically motivated, the refusal of the pope to grant the annulment was not based entirely on principle).
Luther was the first successful Protestant (several of his predecessors having been burnt at the stake), but the time was ripe for such a revolt, as is demonstrated by the phenomenon of earlier revolts and the nearly simultaneous revolts by Calvin and a few others.
This is a bunch of tripe written by the severely ignorant. To say that the Orthodox are merely a “division” of “Catholics” the way that “Catholic” is commonly used in English is nothing short of a flat-out lie.
Yes, the Orthodox call ourselves “Orthodox Catholic”, but we are not “Catholics” in the sense that most people think when they use the term.
Likewise, Dutch Catholics usually adhere to the Utrecht Old Catholic tenets, which means they do not follow the Pope of Rome.
To be fair, that site also lists Roman Catholics as “just one of the divisions”, so I don’t think it’s implying that Dutch Catholics or Orthodox christians follow the Pope.
The Catholic/Orthodox schism was more a process than a single event. The Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) parts of the Church just kinda drifted further and further apart, and eventually they stopped talking to each other.
This post is, as several people have noted, loaded with half-truths. I suspect that Dragonstar is reporting accurately what he’s been given to understand, but the facts of the matter are far different than cited. I offer the following summary, which I wrote, originally for the Pizza Parlor and quoted in GD here on request, as a more accurate account.
Just to add a lazy and unresearched response(and to re-iterate what tomndebb said the word ‘catholic’ means universal so to describe anyone as ‘Dutch Catholic’, ‘Roman Catholic’ or ‘anything-else-catholic’ would seem to be a bit of a misnomer. I know I’m being a bit pedantic
Still my understanding was that Catholic is generally accepted to descibe a member of the Christian Church under the Pope’s rule from Rome. I guess they believe that they are descended from the original Christian church which is supposed to have been founded by St. Peter and is referred to in the bible as ‘catholic’.
It’s unclear to me if the “rubbish” you refer to is the claim that St. Peter was selected by Christ as the head of the Church that Christ was founding on Earth, or if the “rubbish” is the claim that the Vatican CLAIMS the former to be true.
If the former, then it’s hardly a GQ comment.
If the latter, I refer you to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, § 880 et seq:
Bricker, please note the actual statement by YoudNeverGuess:
Are you arguing that anyone actually considers St. Peter to be the founder?
Are you arguing that the nascent church was ever described in the New Testament as “catholic”?
I think we should probably drop this sideline, but I don’t see the reply by Dogface as an attack on RCC history or teaching.
Um, Dogface, perhaps some are confused by the Byzantine Catholic Rite churches. There is an Orthodox Catholic church-it is in communion with Rome and answers to the Pope, but they practice in the Byzantine Rite, as opposed to the Latin Rite. They ARE different from the Orthodox Church proper.
The Catholic Church also had an Anglican Rite church as well, which-you guessed it-is separate from the actual Church of England.
