Are Eastern Catholics "Roman Catholic"?

[JontheMaronite]

As others have said, the “Roman Catholic Church” more often then not is the name given by secularists and Protestants, sometimes who hold Rome up as a paradigm of corruption and may use that name with those connotations (like the “whore of Babylon”).

I would discourage the use of that term as it is an implicit contradiction, because the Church of Christ (who’s primacy and Vicar of Christ is based in Rome) is universal, hence plain and simply Catholic.

Eastern Rite Catholics, like Roman (Western) Rite Catholics, belong to the Catholic Church.

/Maronite musings

 

[kitkatty]

Would agree with Jon on this and btw I voted no in the poll.

 

[Denho]

As others have said, the “Roman Catholic Church” more often then not is the name given by secularists and Protestants, sometimes who hold Rome up as a paradigm of corruption and may use that name with those connotations (like the “whore of Babylon”).

I would discourage the use of that term as it is an implicit contradiction, because the Church of Christ (who’s primacy and Vicar of Christ is based in Rome) is universal, hence plain and simply Catholic.

Eastern Rite Catholics, like Roman (Western) Rite Catholics, belong to the Catholic Church.

/Maronite musings

We really need to be more precise with our language. The history of the phrase “Roman Catholic” is interesting but has little influence on whether Eastern or Oriental Catholics self-identify as Roman Catholic.

The use of the word “rite” has been and will always be woefully inadequate when referring to persons. A rite is nothing more than the expression of the faith of a Church. Canonically a rite is the theological, spiritual, disciplinary, and liturgical patrimony of a Church sui iuris. Colloquially though a rite can be generalized as the way we “do things.” People belong to Churches - not books. A Latin Catholic would never say “I belong to the Missale Romanum” and we would never say “I belong to the Ktobo dQurbono.”

Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics belong to the same Church of Christ, as do the Orthodox. We should therefore be careful about equivocating “the Church” with the Latin Church. The Maronite Church (and all the other Churches) exist in their own right and are of equal dignity. The Bishop of Rome presides in charity but the Latin Church is but one member of the Catholic Communion.

We are not Roman Catholics, yes. But we are also not exactly “just Catholics” either. Hierarchical structure exists for a reason and the distinctive character of Churches sui iuris exists for a reason. To say “I am a Maronite.” or “I am a Melkite.” really does have a meaning more than “I am a Roman Catholic who wears a funny hat.”

 

[Ad_Orientem]

It’s not just the secular media, it’s also Church documents such as Humani generis.

My bad.

I’ve started that document several times and never read the whole thing. It’s long! But now you’ve given me fresh motivation. . .

If “Roman Catholic Church” is good enough for Pope Pius XII, it’s good enough for me.

 

[JontheMaronite]

We really need to be more precise with our language. The history of the phrase “Roman Catholic” is interesting but has little influence on whether Eastern or Oriental Catholics self-identify as Roman Catholic.

The use of the word “rite” has been and will always be woefully inadequate when referring to persons. A rite is nothing more than the expression of the faith of a Church. Canonically a rite is the theological, spiritual, disciplinary, and liturgical patrimony of a Church sui iuris. Colloquially though a rite can be generalized as the way we “do things.” People belong to Churches - not books. A Latin Catholic would never say “I belong to the Missale Romanum” and we would never say “I belong to the Ktobo dQurbono.”

Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics belong to the same Church of Christ, as do the Orthodox. We should therefore be careful about equivocating “the Church” with the Latin Church. The Maronite Church (and all the other Churches) exist in their own right and are of equal dignity. The Bishop of Rome presides in charity but the Latin Church is but one member of the Catholic Communion.

We are not Roman Catholics, yes. But we are also not exactly “just Catholics” either. Hierarchical structure exists for a reason and the distinctive character of Churches sui iuris exists for a reason. To say “I am a Maronite.” or “I am a Melkite.” really does have a meaning more than “I am a Roman Catholic who wears a funny hat.”

I agree with you except that we are talking about a “Church” vs a “Catholic”. “Roman Catholic Church” (as a distinct Church geographically tied to Rome and Roman culture) has a different connotation than a “Roman Catholic” (referencing the rite and the manner, traditions, culture in which we practice our faith). Considering ourselves a “Maronite Church” sui iuris is very dangerous. The hierarchy that we do have within our universal Church isn’t by geographical regions composing different “Churchs” themselves, but dioceses and patriarchates. We are not distinct orthodox churches that happen to believe the same things and take commands from the same universal leader. I think the word Rite is suitable for referring to groups of individuals and areas that are connected by culture and traditions implemented in the liturgy. We all belong to the one true Church.

 

[Denho]

I agree with you except that we are talking about a “Church” vs a “Catholic”. “Roman Catholic Church” (as a distinct Church geographically tied to Rome and Roman culture) has a different connotation than a “Roman Catholic” (referencing the rite and the manner, traditions, culture in which we practice our faith). Considering ourselves a “Maronite Church” sui iuris is very dangerous. The hierarchy that we do have within our universal Church isn’t by geographical regions composing different “Churchs” themselves, but dioceses and patriarchates. We are not distinct orthodox churches that happen to believe the same things and take commands from the same universal leader. I think the word Rite is suitable for referring to groups of individuals and areas that are connected by culture and traditions implemented in the liturgy. We all belong to the one true Church.

We are a Maronite Church sui iuris though. That is a very profound and important distinction. The Maronite Church worships and believes according to the Maronite Rite. Multiple Churches can follow the same Rite. The Chaldean Church and the Syro-Malabar Church both follow the East Syriac Rite and the Syriac Catholics, Syro-Malankara (and Maronites in a way) follow the West Syriac Rite.

The Canons make this distinction very clearly for good reason.

Canon 27

A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.

Canon 28

1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is
   manifested in each Church sui iuris.

 

[BVMFatima]

Well my question is how did the term Roman Catholic begin to mean only the Latins? I know protestants targeted to use the term for the entire Church. Should I just identify as Latin Catholic and not Roman?

 

[Peter_J]

Whoa, hold on a second here …

JontheMaronite, can you explain what you mean by “Considering ourselves a “Maronite Church” sui iuris” (emphasis added)? Are you saying that’s open to debate?

 

[babochka]

Well my question is how did the term Roman Catholic begin to mean only the Latins?

I would say that the Protestants who originally used the term had never heard of Eastern Catholics, and in the minds of those who use it, even today, there is only one kind of Catholic. Most Catholics (and Protestants) today don’t know we exist. Prior to the 20th century, we were mostly unheard of outside of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

 

[Basilios]

I had an argument with a Ukranian Catholic on this point. I was arguing that Roman Catholic should be restricted only to Latin Catholics. He was arguing the opposite, surprisingly. His view was that he is a Ukranian Catholic in union with Rome, which is the home of the Roman Catholic Church. After all, it’s not anywhere else that you need to be united to. It’s Rome.

 

[Lester_S]

I had an argument with a Ukranian Catholic on this point. I was arguing that Roman Catholic should be restricted only to Latin Catholics. He was arguing the opposite, surprisingly. His view was that he is a Ukranian Catholic in union with Rome, which is the home of the Roman Catholic Church. After all, it’s not anywhere else that you need to be united to. It’s Rome.

Actually it is. Because there are Catholics (and not just the Orthodox counterparts, from which the Eastern Catholic churches came) who aren’t in union with Rome (not just SSPX, but the Old Catholics who didn’t accept Vatican I). As my OCA friend says, " the Church is Catholic, the faith is Orthodox. My friend belongs to the Orthodox Church of America, whose Catholicity stems from the Catholic Church, via the Moscow Patriarchate who isn’t in union with the Bishop of Rome. The same goes for any Catholic Church who isn’t in union, with the Roman Bishop, at this present time.

Lutherans are Catholics, who aren’t in union with the Bishop of Rome, but its patrimony comes from Rome, as does the Church of England.

 

[Peter_J]

The use of the word “rite” has been and will always be woefully inadequate when referring to persons. A rite is nothing more than the expression of the faith of a Church. Canonically a rite is the theological, spiritual, disciplinary, and liturgical patrimony of a Church sui iuris. Colloquially though a rite can be generalized as the way we “do things.” People belong to Churches - not books. A Latin Catholic would never say “I belong to the Missale Romanum” and we would never say “I belong to the Ktobo dQurbono.”

Well said. I think we need more posts like that around here.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually it is. Because there are Catholics (and not just the Orthodox counterparts, from which the Eastern Catholic churches came) who aren’t in union with Rome (not just SSPX, but the Old Catholics who didn’t accept Vatican I). As my OCA friend says, " the Church is Catholic, the faith is Orthodox. My friend belongs to the Orthodox Church of America, whose Catholicity stems from the Catholic Church, via the Moscow Patriarchate who isn’t in union with the Bishop of Rome. The same goes for any Catholic Church who isn’t in union, with the Roman Bishop, at this present time.

Lutherans are Catholics, who aren’t in union with the Bishop of Rome, but its patrimony comes from Rome, as does the Church of England.

All of which is fine if one doesn’t equate Catholic with in-communion-with-Rome.

The thing is, that’s a pretty big “if”.

 

[Basilios]

Actually it is. Because there are Catholics (and not just the Orthodox counterparts, from which the Eastern Catholic churches came) who aren’t in union with Rome (not just SSPX, but the Old Catholics who didn’t accept Vatican I). As my OCA friend says, " the Church is Catholic, the faith is Orthodox. My friend belongs to the Orthodox Church of America, whose Catholicity stems from the Catholic Church, via the Moscow Patriarchate who isn’t in union with the Bishop of Rome. The same goes for any Catholic Church who isn’t in union, with the Roman Bishop, at this present time.

Lutherans are Catholics, who aren’t in union with the Bishop of Rome, but its patrimony comes from Rome, as does the Church of England.

Yes, exactly. You’re saying what he said. The whole point is that Latins and the 22 sui iuris Churches are the ones in union with Rome. Because those who call themselves Catholic and are not in union with Rome, well, who cares about them (in a manner of speaking)? You cannot be saved unless you are in union with Rome. Hence, Roman Catholic. I’m not saying this is exactly my own view, just how a Ukranian Catholic explained his position to me.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, exactly. You’re saying what he said. The whole point is that Latins and the 22 sui iuris Churches are the ones in union with Rome. Because those who call themselves Catholic and are not in union with Rome, well, who cares about them (in a manner of speaking)? You cannot be saved unless you are in union with Rome. Hence, Roman Catholic. I’m not saying this is exactly my own view, just how a Ukranian Catholic explained his position to me.

Hmmm … I strongly doubt that Lester and your friend are saying the same thing.

 

[Peter_J]

Well I mean can somebody explain how Roman means only us Latins?

I think the question should be: why do people think that “Latin Catholics” means only those of the Roman Rite?

 

[theistgal]

Well, if I’m filling out a form and my only choices under “Religion” are “Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Other”, I’ll pick “Roman Catholic”.

However, if there are some blank spaces under “Other” saying “Please explain”, I’ll select “Other” and explain.

So - what was that question again?

 

[Peter_J]

Yeah, I think if you just selected “Other” and couldn’t explain, they would assume you were non-Christian.

 

[BVMFatima]

I think the question should be: why do people think that “Latin Catholics” means only those of the Roman Rite?

Oh okay, so its incorrect to identify as roman?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
I think the question should be: why do people think that “Latin Catholics” means only those of the Roman Rite?

Well, the vast majority of the members of the Latin Church do use the Roman Rite. But there are also Ambrosian-Rite Catholics, Mozarabic-Rite Catholics, etc in the Latin Church.

But having said that, there’s no problem with saying “I’m a member of the Roman Communion” … which is another way of saying that I’m in communion with Rome.