Are Eastern Catholics "Roman Catholic"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BVMFatima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BVMFatima

Guest
Hello,

Wikipedia states " TheCatholic Church, also known as theRoman Catholic Church, is the world’s largestChristian church, with 1.2 billion members worldwide.[1][2][3]It is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in thehistory of Western civilisation.The Catholic hierarchyis led by thePopeand includescardinals,patriarchsand diocesan*bishops."

Since this also includes Eastern Catholics being under the Pope, wouldn’t Eastern Catholics be part of the Roman Catholic Church just like us Latins? Since Roman Catholic means all Christians in communion with Rome, how does it apply to only the Latin Church?

God Bless!
 
I think that the Catholic Church’s official name for itself is “The Catholic Church”. So I voted no, Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics.
 
There aren’t that many eastern Catholics in the west, so there are less eastern Catholic churches. This means that many eastern Catholics do indeed have to do some roamin’ to find an eastern Catholic church to attend.
But I don’t think thats what you mean:ehh:
 
If you’re going with the secular media, “Roman Catholic Church” means the Catholic Church (and most of them don’t know that Eastern Catholics exist). But there’s no reason we should adopt the terminology of the secular media.
 
Think on this: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Coptic Catholic; and so on.

Pope Francis has been talking about a local type of administration, saying the diocese of Rome, now has a bishop. He constantly says “Bishop of Rome.”

Eastern Catholics are Catholics are in communion w/ the Bishop of Rome; and believe, in their heart of hearts, the see of unity rests in the Bishop of Rome; and aren’t subjugated, under him.
 
BVMFatima said:
Hello,

Wikipedia states " TheCatholic Church, also known as theRoman Catholic Church, is the world’s largestChristian church, with 1.2 billion members worldwide.[1][2][3]It is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in thehistory of Western civilisation.The Catholic hierarchyis led by thePopeand includescardinals,patriarchsand diocesan*bishops."

Since this also includes Eastern Catholics being under the Pope, wouldn’t Eastern Catholics be part of the Roman Catholic Church just like us Latins? Since Roman Catholic means all Christians in communion with Rome, how does it apply to only the Latin Church?

God Bless!
Click to expand...
By this particular definition, which is a very legitimate definition, yes Eastern Catholics would of course be Roman Catholics.
 
Well I mean can somebody explain how Roman means only us Latins? Wasn’t it a term given to the whole Catholic Church by Anglicans?
 
Ad_Orientem said:
If you’re going with the secular media, “Roman Catholic Church” means the Catholic Church (and most of them don’t know that Eastern Catholics exist). But there’s no reason we should adopt the terminology of the secular media.
Click to expand...
It’s not just the secular media, it’s also Church documents such as Humani generis.
 
BVMFatima said:
Well I mean can somebody explain how Roman means only us Latins? Wasn’t it a term given to the whole Catholic Church by Anglicans?
Click to expand...
We’ve had this discussion several times. The fact is that there are at least two very distinct meanings of the term which are in current usage. It simply can’t be reduced to only one of those two without breaking from reality.
 
Lester_S said:
Think on this: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Coptic Catholic; and so on.

Pope Francis has been talking about a local type of administration, saying the diocese of Rome, now has a bishop. He constantly says “Bishop of Rome.”

Eastern Catholics are Catholics are in communion w/ the Bishop of Rome; and believe, in their heart of hearts, the see of unity rests in the Bishop of Rome; and aren’t subjugated, under him.
Click to expand...
Well, we Christians certainly reject the whole “lording it over others” model of leadership, but at the same time the Pope does have universal and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church, East and West,
 
Aelred_Minor said:
By this particular definition, which is a very legitimate definition, yes Eastern Catholics would of course be Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
However, this isn’t an honest description. Roman Catholicism carries with it theological perspectives, attitudes and practices foreign to other Catholics whose patrimony doesn’t stem from Rome. Ruthenian Greek Catholics are Catholics whose patrimony comes from Greece, with the adjustment to the Ruthenian people. On the same road, by my Ruthenian parish is a Polish Roman Catholic Church - Catholics whose patrimony comes from Rome, bit adjusted to the Polish people
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Well, we Christians certainly reject the whole “lording it over others” model of leadership, but at the same time the Pope does have universal and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church, East and West,
Click to expand...
Read St Irenaeus. Presides in charity over all churches, first among equals.
 
Lester_S said:
Read St Irenaeus. Presides in charity over all churches, first among equals.
Click to expand...
Certainly I would agree with such sentiments, provided they are interpreted in light of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction (and the Pope’s universal jurisdiction interpreted in light of them).

We could also talk about Eastern vs. Western ways of looking at ecclesial authority, and that would be a very interesting discussion (though a sidetrack within this thread), but the objective reality transcends such subjective differences in perception.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Certainly I would agree with such sentiments, provided they are interpreted in light of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction (and the Pope’s universal jurisdiction interpreted in light of them).
Click to expand...
Nope. 22 self governing churches
 
Lester_S said:
Nope. 22 self governing churches
Click to expand...
It is that kind of radical rejection of general Catholic ecclesiology and canon law that can get you into spiritual trouble.

Edit: My response is to the “Nope” part. The complete and casual rejection of one very real side of the Church’s structure is the problem, not the complementary view of the Church as a number of sui iuris Churches.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
It is that kind of radical rejection of general Catholic ecclesiology and canon law that can get you into spiritual trouble.
Click to expand...
Same would go for your assertion of a particular definition of supremacy, which the pope didn’t have the first millennia of Christendom
 
Lester_S said:
Same would go for your assertion of a particular definition of supremacy, which the pope didn’t have the first millennia of Christendom
Click to expand...
I would argue the bishop of Rome had it at least in a sort of potentiality, even if it took further authentic development in ecclesiology for us to fully realize all the practical ramifications of his unique role. In any case I try to make a point of not rejecting any orthodox doctrine in favor of a simplified version of another.
 
BVMFatima said:
Hello,

Wikipedia states " TheCatholic Church, also known as theRoman Catholic Church, is the world’s largestChristian church, with 1.2 billion members worldwide.[1][2][3]It is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in thehistory of Western civilisation.The Catholic hierarchyis led by thePopeand includescardinals,patriarchsand diocesan*bishops."

Since this also includes Eastern Catholics being under the Pope, wouldn’t Eastern Catholics be part of the Roman Catholic Church just like us Latins? Since Roman Catholic means all Christians in communion with Rome, how does it apply to only the Latin Church?

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Let me pose a question thus … The Roman Catholic Church is which of the following:
  1. the Roman Rite
  2. the Latin Church
  3. the entire Roman Communion
    ?
I would suggest that none of those should be called “the Roman Catholic Church”. (In cases #1 and #2, doing so confuses rite and church – the Roman Rite is the main rite used in the Latin Church, but it’s not the only one. There’s also the Ambrosian Rite, the Bragan Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc. In case #3, it should be called either “the Roman Communion” or “the Catholic Church”.)
 
Peter_J said:
Let me pose a question thus … The Roman Catholic Church is which of the following:
  1. the Roman Rite
  2. the Latin Church
  3. the entire Roman Communion
    ?
I would suggest that none of those should be called “the Roman Catholic Church”. (In cases #1 and #2, doing so confuses rite and church – the Roman Rite is the main rite used in the Latin Church, but it’s not the only one. There’s also the Ambrosian Rite, the Bragan Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc. In case #3, it should be called either “the Roman Communion” or “the Catholic Church”.)
Click to expand...
I’d call it the Roman union. The only question I’d have in a united church would be: who’d be patriarch of those churches who’d end up being absorbed into one another. I know the Melkites on the ground are talking consistently about union with each other, at least from a couple of Melkites I’ve talked to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top