Are Eastern Catholics "Roman Catholic"?

[Lotharson]

To my mind, everyone who believes that

1. God is perfect
   and
2. He revealed Himself through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

is a Christian, and the rest doesn’t matter.

Lovely greetings from Germany.
Liebe Grüsse aus Deutschland.

Lothars Sohn - Lothar’s son

lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

 

[Josephene]

Thought it would be good to make amends for the connotation of negativity, in association with the word 'submission ’ in the previous post.

Tomorrow , the 22nd, The Church celebrates the Feast of the Queenship of Bl.Mother , who models , after her Son, what it is, to stand under the mission , like He Himself - after that of The Father , to bring us children redemption and she participating in same , thus, to even help reverse what has been brought into nature itself , that rebelled ( rebels ! ) , through the lack of submission of Eve and what has followed , in similar manner , in many lives .

kaldu.org/joomla/index.php/documents/9-uncategorised/146-pastoral-letter
section V of this posted article, traces the history of the reluctance to be of one mission, to stand under that one mission, as far back us 410 A.D . and what follows !

Interesting how such a memory plays out deep and long and how The Church blesses us with feasts that celebrate the role of such being reversed .

Interesting too , that cultural factors might have played a role in the centrality of the role of The Mother , who is given such a role, was likely to have been rather obscured , if the emphasis would have been mostly only on her ’ passing ’ !

Importance of such honor to be given her (alone ) might be also indirectly discerened , from seeing how the torrents of lies spewed by the dragon, to put confusion and fear in hearts , by introduction of false goddess worship , such as that of Astarte, was strictly dealt with by God, for the people of Old Testament .

Such mythological 'accidents ’ are also still being 'celebrated ’ in cultures - such as the upcoming Onam Festival for people of the Thomas land of Kerala .
The main legend is about this ( demon ! ) king , who was ruling in prosperity !, making the 'gods ’ envious !, who, in turn, has one of them take the form of a little boy , who cheats the above king , making him submit, sending him, to the nether world , except to return once a year !

( ? Even an antilfie theme - on how little lives can take over ! )

Unsure if such legends played a role for cultures and times ,not having access / means of the truth of the goodness and holiness of God ( His most loving sacrifice and atonement and thus of man’s calling too , to be holy and repentant ) to make persons think that even gods have fallen natures, thus as a means to keep animosity /hatred related to sin, under control !

The role of the Queen Mother and celebrating all that is associated with her birth and life , that blesses the earth too , along with that of other holy people - thus Christians find some common cause to celebrate too - her life and the bounty and goodness of the earth , that too hopefully remains free of too much rebellion but under the God given mission, to bring forth good !

God Bless !

 

[jimkhong]

Eastern Catholics are Catholics in union with Rome, but they are not Roman Catholics in the sense that they do not use the Roman rite. Similarly Roman Catholics are not Eastern Catholics. IMHO

If you have to use the Roman rite to be a Roman Catholic, then would that exclude those using the Ambrosian Rite?

It would seem to me that there are many shades of “Roman”: Roman because
1 we are in communion with the Bishop of Rome (that includes all Catholics)
2 our liturgy is derived from that of Rome (that excludes all Eastern Rite Catholics)
3 we use the same liturgy as Rome (that excludes Milanese)

Is there a 2.5 for those who do not use the new translation of the Roman Missal?

When I once told an Orthodox priest that I consider myself an Asian Catholic who would one day like to have our own rite & liturgy in communion with Rome, he smiled broadly. With Vatican II, we stopped being European in the church and became Asian. It has brought great wealth and growth to the Asian Church and long may the journey continue.

 

[Bergon]

If you have to use the Roman rite to be a Roman Catholic, then would that exclude those using the Ambrosian Rite?

It would seem to me that there are many shades of “Roman”: Roman because
1 we are in communion with the Bishop of Rome (that includes all Catholics)
2 our liturgy is derived from that of Rome (that excludes all Eastern Rite Catholics)
3 we use the same liturgy as Rome (that excludes Milanese)

Is there a 2.5 for those who do not use the new translation of the Roman Missal?

When I once told an Orthodox priest that I consider myself an Asian Catholic who would one day like to have our own rite & liturgy in communion with Rome, he smiled broadly. With Vatican II, we stopped being European in the church and became Asian. It has brought great wealth and growth to the Asian Church and long may the journey continue.

You don’t need to use the Roman Rite to be Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church has not only the Roman Rite but others too: Ambrosian, Bragan, Carmelite, Mozarabic, etc.

I suppose we could call all Catholics Roman because of their relationship the the Bishop of Roman. I don’t know how comfortable the East and Orient would be if described as ‘Roman’. I’m not sure all western Catholic liturgical rites are derived from Rome. Not even in the west do we all use the Roman Rite.

It wouldn’t be appropriate to develop an Asian Catholic church with its own rites and praxis. Inculturation is most definitely permitted but to do the former is more Orthodox ecclesiology rather than Catholic.

Some of the problems associated with the term ‘Roman Catholic’ might be resolved if we adopted the term ‘Latin Catholic Church’.

 

[Aramis]

If you have to use the Roman rite to be a Roman Catholic, then would that exclude those using the Ambrosian Rite?

It would seem to me that there are many shades of “Roman”: Roman because
1 we are in communion with the Bishop of Rome (that includes all Catholics)
2 our liturgy is derived from that of Rome (that excludes all Eastern Rite Catholics)
3 we use the same liturgy as Rome (that excludes Milanese)

Is there a 2.5 for those who do not use the new translation of the Roman Missal?

When I once told an Orthodox priest that I consider myself an Asian Catholic who would one day like to have our own rite & liturgy in communion with Rome, he smiled broadly. With Vatican II, we stopped being European in the church and became Asian. It has brought great wealth and growth to the Asian Church and long may the journey continue.

Technically, the Ambrosian Rite should not be called a Rite in the same sense as, say, Roman or Byzantine…

The major rites are defined in the CCEO: those of Rome, Constantinople (Byzantine), Alexandria , Armenia, Antioch (West Syrian), and Chaldea (East Syrian). Gaul would have been an additional one, had it still be a distinct rite at the time of Trent.

THe Ambrosian is close enough to the Roman to be a major tradition, much like there are three major traditions in the Byzantine rite (Syro-Byzantine, Greco-Byzantine, Slavo-Byzantine). But, due to overuse of the term rite, it is called a Rite.

Same for the Dominican Rite.

THey all derive from the Roman patrimony. The Bragan and Mozarabic, well… they’re gallican-roman hybrids.

Or, if one uses the western minor rites as the standard, then the various Traditions of the East constitute separate rites, making about 12 rites…

 

[jimkhong]

Technically, the Ambrosian Rite should not be called a Rite in the same sense as, say, Roman or Byzantine…

The major rites are defined in the CCEO: those of Rome, Constantinople (Byzantine), Alexandria , Armenia, Antioch (West Syrian), and Chaldea (East Syrian). Gaul would have been an additional one, had it still be a distinct rite at the time of Trent.

THe Ambrosian is close enough to the Roman to be a major tradition, much like there are three major traditions in the Byzantine rite (Syro-Byzantine, Greco-Byzantine, Slavo-Byzantine). But, due to overuse of the term rite, it is called a Rite.

Same for the Dominican Rite.

THey all derive from the Roman patrimony. The Bragan and Mozarabic, well… they’re gallican-roman hybrids.

Or, if one uses the western minor rites as the standard, then the various Traditions of the East constitute separate rites, making about 12 rites…

I think you are illustrating my point that just as you can define “Rite” in different ways (in addition to the more conventionally used way), you can define “Roman” in different ways. We are either Roman Catholics or not Roman Catholics depending on your use of the term “Roman”. I have no issue calling myself a Roman Catholic if it is denoting that I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I suspect Eastern Catholics have no issue with that as well. But, if it means that I am a Roman in my outlook, then no.

It wouldn’t be appropriate to develop an Asian Catholic church with its own rites and praxis. Inculturation is most definitely permitted but to do the former is more Orthodox ecclesiology rather than Catholic.

There are churches for whom dependency on Rome is critical for their survival (eg., the English church during the Reformation) or identity (eg., Ukrainians). There are, however, other churches with different histories and different hopes for the future. Who knows where the path of inculturation could have taken us if the centrailising tendency of the Curia in the 80’s had not taken hold. Who knows where the Asian church would be today if the 17th century Jesuit missionary spirit had prevailed in the imperial palace of the Forbidden City instead of the distant effects of European court politics.

While none of us would wish see the a fragmentation as in the Anglican communion where some of the churches hardy know each other doctrinally, an Asian identity for the church giving respect to Asian traditions and sensitivities is necessary for us to further develop our witness to the Asian experience, taking it that one level beyond than the tireless French and Irish missionaries could have taken it. Scars from the Latin treatment of Malabarese Christians remain visible though healed, while those of Nagasaki Christians remain open for some to this day.

Don’t get me wrong, we love Rome - ask any Chinese Catholic. But we do have yearnings that the West may not understand and our problems are sometimes not the same as in the West. Sometimes, the solutions to the West’s problems harm us more than they help. I believe that if we are free to express our Catholicism and yet remain within the boundaries of the faith, the Mother Church would be ever richer and further fulfill the meaning of the word catholic in its name.

 

[Bergon]

There are churches for whom dependency on Rome is critical for their survival (eg., the English church during the Reformation) or identity (eg., Ukrainians). There are, however, other churches with different histories and different hopes for the future. Who knows where the path of inculturation could have taken us if the centrailising tendency of the Curia in the 80’s had not taken hold. Who knows where the Asian church would be today if the 17th century Jesuit missionary spirit had prevailed in the imperial palace of the Forbidden City instead of the distant effects of European court politics.

While none of us would wish see the a fragmentation as in the Anglican communion where some of the churches hardy know each other doctrinally, an Asian identity for the church giving respect to Asian traditions and sensitivities is necessary for us to further develop our witness to the Asian experience, taking it that one level beyond than the tireless French and Irish missionaries could have taken it. Scars from the Latin treatment of Malabarese Christians remain visible though healed, while those of Nagasaki Christians remain open for some to this day.

Don’t get me wrong, we love Rome - ask any Chinese Catholic. But we do have yearnings that the West may not understand and our problems are sometimes not the same as in the West. Sometimes, the solutions to the West’s problems harm us more than they help. I believe that if we are free to express our Catholicism and yet remain within the boundaries of the faith, the Mother Church would be ever richer and further fulfill the meaning of the word catholic in its name.

I think what your saying now is different from before. I may be wrong but that’s how it comes across. I fully appreciate that one answer doesn’t fit all. I think dealing with the problems of any type that face people because of their country of residence, ethnic heriatge, culture, history, etc. can be accommodated with the right intention. On the other hand I don’t think that should lead to a proliferation of rites/uses of the Roman Liturgy. I could equally argue that as I’m not of the Diocese of Rome the liturgy of the Roman Church isn’t mine. However being Catholic is part of being in communion with each other and having the same rite is part of that unity. We may be Chinese, English, Russian, Togolese, etc. but we’re also all Catholics. There is no multiplication of rites in the East and Orient. There is more than one eastern or oriental rite. But, most churches have one rite. The number of Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches exceeds the number of eastern and oriental liturgical rites.

 

[Peter_J]

If you have to use the Roman rite to be a Roman Catholic, then would that exclude those using the Ambrosian Rite?

That’s not really a problem, however, since the term “Latin Catholic” encompasses Roman Catholics, Ambrosian Catholics, Bragan Catholics, Mozarbic Catholics, etc. In other words, all the various Western Rites belong to the one Latin Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

It wouldn’t be appropriate to develop an Asian Catholic church with its own rites and praxis. Inculturation is most definitely permitted but to do the former is more Orthodox ecclesiology rather than Catholic.

So what’s wrong with jimkhong’s desire “to have our own rite & liturgy in communion with Rome”? (I’m not necessarily saying your wrong, I just don’t understand what the underlying reasoning is.)

 

[jimkhong]

That’s not really a problem, however, since the term “Latin Catholic” encompasses Roman Catholics, Ambrosian Catholics, Bragan Catholics, Mozarbic Catholics, etc. In other words, all the various Western Rites belong to the one Latin Catholic Church.

So your view is that Roman Catholic is a sub-set of Latin Catholic. That is probably a typical Eastern Catholic view, one that find much sympathy with me. Western Catholics tend to see if the other way round. We are all Roman Catholics, and I accept that only if I need to convey my communion with the Bishop of Rome. Less knowledgeable Western Catholics would even equate Latin Catholics to Roman Catholics.

I fully appreciate that one answer doesn’t fit all. I think dealing with the problems of any type that face people because of their country of residence, ethnic heriatge, culture, history, etc. can be accommodated with the right intention. On the other hand I don’t think that should lead to a proliferation of rites/uses of the Roman Liturgy. I could equally argue that as I’m not of the Diocese of Rome the liturgy of the Roman Church isn’t mine. However being Catholic is part of being in communion with each other and having the same rite is part of that unity. We may be Chinese, English, Russian, Togolese, etc. but we’re also all Catholics. There is no multiplication of rites in the East and Orient. There is more than one eastern or oriental rite. But, most churches have one rite. The number of Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches exceeds the number of eastern and oriental liturgical rites.

Thanks for trying to be sensitive (no, I am not being sarcastic ). But I don’t think Church is monolithic nor does it need to be. Having a separate Rite does not mean being out of communion. I am sure you know that but it is not uncommon for Western Catholics to fear the loss of uniformity. After all, it was likely that the uniformity of the Tridentine Rite that stemmed the Reformation.

But that was a different world then. Globalisation since then has brought the Church to cultures hitherto unknown, which with post-colonialism, these cultures seeks to find non-European roots. Let these cultures pray in ways and languages more appropriate to us, and pray with the same faith as the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

So your view is that Roman Catholic is a sub-set of Latin Catholic.

Well, I would say that if pressed. But generally I prefer to avoid the term “Roman Catholic”.

That is probably a typical Eastern Catholic view, one that find much sympathy with me. Western Catholics tend to see if the other way round. We are all Roman Catholics,

Actually, in my experience, most Latin Catholics very strongly oppose using the term “Roman Catholic” to mean everyone in communion with Rome.

 

[Aramis]

Actually, in my experience, most Latin Catholics very strongly oppose using the term “Roman Catholic” to mean everyone in communion with Rome.

Same here.

 

[Zekariya]

The Melkite Church’s official name in Arabic:

Kanīsat ar-Rūm al-Malakiyyīn al-Kāṯūlīk

Kanīsat = Church,
Rūm = Roman
Malakiyyīn = Melkite
Kāṯūlīk = Catholic

 

[MorEphrem]

The Melkite Church’s official name in Arabic:

Kanīsat ar-Rūm al-Malakiyyīn al-Kāṯūlīk

Kanīsat = Church,
Rūm = Roman
Malakiyyīn = Melkite
Kāṯūlīk = Catholic

May I just offer to clarify in the context of the Byzantine Churches and Arabic Roum refers to Constantinople, as opposed to Rome. Even the Greek Orthodox are called Roumi, not because they’re Roman but they’re Constantinoplian. There are several anecdotal (probably part-myth) etymologies as to how the Byzantines were assigned the association with the word “Roum” but I think it pertains to Constantinople being the “New Rome.”

I’m sure you knew that Zekariya, I don’t mean to act as though you didn’t, I just thought it was a relevant footnote .

 

[Zekariya]

May I just offer to clarify in the context of the Byzantine Churches and Arabic Roum refers to Constantinople, as opposed to Rome. Even the Greek Orthodox are called Roumi, not because they’re Roman but they’re Constantinoplian. There are several anecdotal (probably part-myth) etymologies as to how the Byzantines were assigned the association with the word “Roum” but I think it pertains to Constantinople being the “New Rome.”

I’m sure you knew that Zekariya, I don’t mean to act as though you didn’t, I just thought it was a relevant footnote .

Non problem.

 

[malphono]

v

May I just offer to clarify in the context of the Byzantine Churches and Arabic Roum refers to Constantinople, as opposed to Rome. Even the Greek Orthodox are called Roumi, not because they’re Roman but they’re Constantinoplian. There are several anecdotal (probably part-myth) etymologies as to how the Byzantines were assigned the association with the word “Roum” but I think it pertains to Constantinople being the “New Rome.”

Quite correct, and not at all anecdotal. It pertains to “New Rome” (i.e. Constantinople) and only that. IOW, in Arabic, “Roum” (whether “Orthodoxe” or “Catholique”) refers **strictly **to Constantinople

 

[Peter_J]

Quite correct, and not at all anecdotal. It pertains to “New Rome” (i.e. Constantinople) and only that. IOW, in Arabic, “Roum” (whether “Orthodoxe” or “Catholique”) refers **strictly **to Constantinople

What if they want to talk about old Rome?

 

[MorEphrem]

What if they want to talk about old Rome?

I was pretty certain Roum was Rome as well, but perhaps I’m mistaken. It’s been a while since I had Arabic lessons as a child and needed to know major countries and capitals .

 

[malphono]

Peter J;11130650:

What if they want to talk about old Rome?

I was pretty certain Roum was Rome as well, but perhaps I’m mistaken. It’s been a while since I had Arabic lessons as a child and needed to know major countries and capitals .

When they speak of “old Rome” it’s the Latin word “Roma” that’s used. But that’s only used in a geographical or political sense. In the ecclesiastical sense, the Latin Church is identified as “Lateen.”

This all derives from the Syriac word “r-houomi” (usually with an occulting line under the “he” so the spelling itself is often shortened to “roumi”) for Rome, which itself is obviously a borrowed word, and also means the Roman Empire as well as the city itself. With the rise of Constantinople and the division of the Empire into Eastern & Western portions, use of the word expanded, but since it was the Eastern (i.e, Byzantine) portion of the empire which held sway in the Levant, and since the Empire itself gave Constantinople the moniker “New Rome,” it came to commonly mean the latter. To me, at least, that expansion in usage makes perfect sense.

Acts 28:16, e.g, the word refers to “old Rome” but of course the Empire wasn’t split at that point. OTOH, the qolo for Exaltation of the Holy Cross, (the first line of which translates (my translation): “From Rome, the city of the kings, Queen Helen came to Jerusalem …”) was composed after the division, and the word refers strictly to Constantinople.

I suppose if it were necessary to differentiate, a qualifier could be added, same as we do in English, (something like “roumi 'atiqo” for Rome and “roumi Hdatho” for Constantinople). Perhaps Rony or Anthony might be able to add something.

 

[Peter_J]

I see.