How Much is Rome Worth To You?

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Without quoting many of the Once again, I believe in the universal supremacy (NOT JUST PRIMACY, but SUPREMACY) of Peter’s Seat…the Pope of Rome, and the infallibility of that office (as promised by Christ). Once that is understood, obedience is something that is gladly given, without reservation. And I view that obedience as ‘not mindless subserviance’…but as trusting in the promise of Christ, in a child of God who believes in the promise (to protect the Church from the gates of Hades). And that promise is protected and perpetuated in the Chair of Peter, alone.
By the way, you wrote as if I’m the only Catholic who holds this position, when, in fact, I’m certainly NOT. The teaching of the Church, as you must know, is that the Pope is the chosen leader of the Church universal (the representative of Jesus, specifically as the heir of Peter), on earth. That isn’t something I made up. We also hold to the infallibility of that office. And, as seen in my ealier post, the Catholic Church can claim that NO Catholic Pope has ever taught heresy (proof that the promise that Christ gave to the Church resides in the Papacy of the Roman See). It’s not the geographic location that holds significance, but the office itself.

I won’t be singled out, as if I invented some new innovation in Catholic teaching.

By the way, I will be gone for a day or so. I’ll check the thread again then.

byzgirl
 
One last word, before I go. When someone asks me what ‘religion’ I am, I always respond, “Byzantine Catholic”, never ‘just’ Byzantine (as I here from some). But if I HAD to use one word, I’d have to use ‘Catholic’. I think, for some of the Eastern rite Catholics on this forum thread, they would respond with the name of their ‘rite’.

The title of this thread gives everything away. How Much is Rome Worth To You…for Catholics, Rome is Home Sweet Home (no matter where we, as individuals actually live) because it’s where the Pope resides. And we look to him, as the final authority here on earth when it comes to problems with unity regarding disagreement on faith and morals. We understand His office to be the answer to the problems of disunity. We know that we can trust the promise of Christ in that role (the successor of Peter). That is why ‘it is why we look to Rome’ as home. It’s not just a location on a map (East or West), it’s where we look for guidance (the shepherd of shepherds resides there).

I’ll check back later. God bless all of you!

P.S. I love the Eastern rite(s) of the Church
 
Before I leave (momentarily), I just thought of something that I could say to express myself even more clearly.

“AN EASTERN CATHOLIC should not be looking toward the Orthodox Church, as an authority equal to the Papal office of the Roman See. Though they (the Eastern Orthodox Church) can rightly claim to be part of the Body of Christ (though not in its fullnest sense) and Apostolic (which means they have valid sacraments and a valid priesthood), they are still in schism from the supreme authority of the Chair of Peter (which was established, long ago, in Rome). He or shee should be looking toward Rome because of his/her being a member of the Catholic Church (not just in name, but in its full historic meaning).”

Rome is worth much more than just ‘loving the Pope’ (which is all well and good). But it involves being subject to that authority of Peter’s heir.

Slava Isusu Christu!

byzgirl
 
Without quoting many of the statements made within the large amount of dialogue, I’d disagree. I HAVE been arguing with some regarding the idea that the Church is NOT one physical, tangible, institution; against the definition of catholic being small-c; and have endured many slams against ‘Rome’ and the ‘Pope’. Rome is the epicenter of the Papacy, and is the home of the Supreme Pontiff. He is the leader of the flock, and the critical seat of unity for the Church. I don’t know much about the Melkites, but I have been defending the Pope’s universal supremacy , and not just his primacy,(as the heir of Saint Peter’s authority–the Chair of Peter).

There seems to be a LOT of nastiness in regards to anything Latin (or Roman), which I think undermines an individual’s understanding of unity and desire for unity. The Latin Rite is the complimentary, valid lung of the Church just as the Eastern Rites (of the Catholic Church) is its counterpart. The Orthodox Church is in schism, so I would suggest that Catholic (with a captital C) takes precedence over and above any Eastern-ness. We are all Catholics. We are Catholic in both senses. The one describes the Church, and the other identifies Her.

Even the use of the term ‘Rome’ and ‘Roman’ seems to come with some ‘resentment’. It shouldn’t. It has felt, at times, like I’ve been arguing with non-denominational Evangelicals, who have the same resentment and fling around anti-Pope and anti-Rome comments and descriptives, like there’s no tomorrow ('popish, Romanish, Romanism, papist, etc…)…all with anger and hostility.

I didn’t bring in the words ‘tyrant’, or ‘dictator’, but I’ve seen it used in these posts, and I’m just here to defend the Papacy from any wrongful depiction.

And, as someone raised in the Latin Rite of the Church (now, for quite a few years, Byzantine Rite–my brother is a Byzantine rite priest), I am also defending the Latin Rite, which has been the focus of much resentment as well.

I do not hold any hostility toward Eastern Rite Catholics (or, for that matter, the Orthodox). But I do NOT go for the 'Eastern first" mentality when it comes to being a Catholic.

**“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific…”

Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D… **

I think that both Pope’s have made it clear that they, in turn, give the utmost respect to the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, and have (like I’ve mentioned before) encouraged the Eastern rites to claim their heritage in custom and tradition (see the previous post from John Paul II).

I feel that I shouldn’t be defending the Latin Rite and the Supreme authority of the Papacy from Eastern Rite CATHOLICS. The title Catholic means much more than ‘universal’, and, throughout history, since Pentecost, has been a visible institution…not an invisible entity (as most Protestants believe).

Once again, I believe in the universal supremacy of Peter’s Seat…the Pope of Rome, and the infallibility of that office (as promised by Christ). Once that is understood, obedience is something that is gladly given, without reservation. And I view that obedience as ‘not mindless subserviance’…but as trusting in the promise of Christ, in a child of God who believes in the promise (to protect the Church from the gates of Hades). And that promise is protected and perpetuated in the Chair of Peter, alone.
…I think it is time again to post the difference between using the terminology Eastern “Rites” vs. “Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches”. A “Rite or Rites” aren’t churches and it is disrepectful to continuely refer to the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches in union with Rome as “Eastern Rites”. FYI

U-C
 
well U-C probably said very succinctly everything i had to say.

I have no doubts that you enjoy attending the liturgy of St.John Chrysostom and St.Basil. The question is whether or not there is any place in your thought for the 22 Churches within Catholicism that are not the Latin Church. You say you don’t want to assimilate them, but in effect, if what you said were true, then they would already be assimilated.

Moreover, while I do feel a kinship with other Churches that are Byzantine rite, of which there are several, those others are not my home Church and they are not interchangeable. If someone told me they were Byzantine Catholic, I would assume they were BCC, not that it was some generic term for liking the Divine Liturgy. If I say I am Melkite, it designates what Church I belong to – though I will often say I am Catholic if I want to avoid a conversation: it gets old explaining that Catholicism is made up of a communion of 23 Churches, of which the Roman Catholic Church is only 1 (if by far the largest), and they usually have no idea what you are talking about anyway. Of course most Latins have no idea what you are talking about either.

I have not been arguing for some special status because I am attached to the idea of being “Eastern”. I have been trying repeatedly to say that we are Church: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic.

Again, this thread asked the question what we would do if for some reason communion were broken between Rome and our Church. I am not entirely clear why it is so surprising that we would remain with our Church and thus in all likelihood find ourselves in communion with, in the case of the Melkites, the Antiochene Orthodox. The loss of communion with Rome would be sad and painful. Rome does hold a unique and special role of leadership and we would pray for communion with Rome, even as we now pray for communion with Antioch (and with our brothers and sisters in other Apostolic Churches).

I am pretty much at the point of repeating myself and we are drifting well beyond the topic so I do not know what else there is to say. I have in earlier posts provided a theological account of Catholicity, and I have affirmed the unique leadership role of what Marduk likes to refer to as the head bishop (from Apostolic Canon 34), affirming specifically the 5 points that Marduk was making regarding the Pope and which you also affirmed. Finally I at least am not attacking the Papacy, whose office is absolutely necessary. And I have no resentment concerning the existence of the Latin Church. I even find Latin theology interesting, and enjoy reading it and have a richer faith because of it. But we are not Latins. And the world is a richer place because of it. The harmony of our voices, or the real diversity of our respective languages (to use a metaphor from earlier in the conversation) allow finite creation to give greater glory to a God who is infinite.

salaam.
 
And to this one, from Christy74:
"In the Eastern Churches we don’t have that problem and the other Liturgical problems that I hear about in the Roman Church…using popcorn and punch to Consecrate for Holy Eucharist and the Tabernacle of Christ not in the Church, people dancing during Mass/Divine Liturgy, etc. We don’t have those problems"


Without straying from the thread’s main subject, I thought this deserved a response. What you’ve heard about in the ‘Roman’ Church (Latin Rite of the Catholic Church) is known as Liturgical abuse (meaning that it is not allowed, under Canon Law, and can and should be reported by the faithful). “Such innovations usually serve to suit the fancy of whomever is coordinating the liturgy of the mass. Sometimes it’s the priest’s doing. Sometimes it’s the result of lay involvement in liturgical planning”. Sadly, they sometimes happen, but it doesn’t mean that they are condoned, encouraged, or widespread and frequent. I’d be the first to admit that I personally ‘prefer’ the Byzantine Liturgy to the Latin Rite Liturgy; however, to state (and so snidely) that it’s a common occurrence (or allowed) is false.
“None of this is sanctioned by the rubrics of the mass mandated by the Holy See, nor the Code of Canon Law”, including ‘Liturgical dance’ or ‘substitutions for the Eucharistic preparation’. You may find ‘crackers and grape juice’ (I refrain from using your chosen ‘substitutions’ because of its lack of respect for all)… at particular Protestant communal services (and ‘Praise Dancing’) which are often allowed and encouraged during certain Protestant ‘services’, but to suggest that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church allows for such innovations and substitution, is ridiculous and ignorant…and just plain nasty for the sake of being nasty.
Nope not for being nasty…for the sake of pointing out that this sort of thing does happen and frankly is common in the United States Roman Catholic Churches for the last few decades, just as Arianism was common in many Churches centuries ago.

The popcorn and punch incident was witnessed by someone I’d met over 13 years ago at a teenage Catholic Summer Camp by a Roman Catholic Priest. Of course it is scandlous and lacks respect for all and yet it happens.

I personally have been inside the two Roman Catholic Churches in Lynchburg, VA. The one Church doesn’t even have a tabernacle anywhere in the Church, but they did have one, you had to leave the Church, go down the hall, around the corner, down another hall and off to the right into the a small room (I believe it used to be a coat room) where you can find the tabernacle. The receptionist/secretary who gave me the tour was so proud of the fact that the tabernacle was missing from the Church, “Can you imagine how awful it would be, if when we go to Church on Sunday we had to kneel and be quiet in Church rather than have the chance to visit with our neighbors who we hadn’t see all week?! It would be just terrible!”.

My point is it happened another other things like this happen in Roman Catholic Churches, but not in Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches, why is that? I don’t know the answer, I just know it doesn’t happen.

Now you say this is not licid and not approved by the Roman Catholic Church; and your are right and yet it still continues. The priests who do and allow such things to take place in their parishes continue to be priests. Bishops even after receiving multiple complaints from some parishioners continue to allow this sort of thing to happen. It boggles the mind! It truly does.
 
How Much is Rome Worth To You…for Catholics, Rome is Home Sweet Home (no matter where we, as individuals actually live) because it’s where the Pope resides.
I have made no vote as I am not Greko Catolic. But I have found reading this thred very interesting to me. I have been in position to have to decide such question - does head of church make difference to me. Initially I believed not. There is something in this thread that transcends such arguments about theology of primacy, immaculate concept, etc.

For instance if I ever attended Orthodox church of Kyivan patriarchate I was going to have a church where Russian was not spoken, where Church slavonic was replacing with modern Ukrainian. Same faith - but different and uncomfortable for me - (my mixed Ukrainian Rossian family is from Belgorod). So now I understand beyond theology why I prefer Moskow patriarchate - because I feel “at home”.

Although I have worded quite badly - I see other people have same idea - they feel “at home” in churches of bishop of rome -as said “Rome sweet home”.

This is a very powerful reason to be member of a certain church. But it is partly irrational unlike theological differences we discuss most often - what makes me feel “at home” much different from others - but here my priest can be confessor - he understands me, I him. So I can become brought closer to Our Lord without disturbing ecclesiastical politics.

So whether you pray during Divine Liturgiia for Patriarch of Moskow, Kyiv or Bishop of Rome - this is perhaps less important in the final view than coming closer to Jesus Christ through holy mysteries. But only in church of Patriarch of Moskow do I feel “at home” with Our Lord Jesus Christ and his life-giving mysteries.
 
I have made no vote as I am not Greko Catolic. But I have found reading this thred very interesting to me. I have been in position to have to decide such question - does head of church make difference to me. Initially I believed not. There is something in this thread that transcends such arguments about theology of primacy, immaculate concept, etc.

For instance if I ever attended Orthodox church of Kyivan patriarchate I was going to have a church where Russian was not spoken, where Church slavonic was replacing with modern Ukrainian. Same faith - but different and uncomfortable for me - (my mixed Ukrainian Rossian family is from Belgorod). So now I understand beyond theology why I prefer Moskow patriarchate - because I feel “at home”.

Although I have worded quite badly - I see other people have same idea - they feel “at home” in churches of bishop of rome -as said “Rome sweet home”.

This is a very powerful reason to be member of a certain church. But it is partly irrational unlike theological differences we discuss most often - what makes me feel “at home” much different from others - but here my priest can be confessor - he understands me, I him. So I can become brought closer to Our Lord without disturbing ecclesiastical politics.

So whether you pray during Divine Liturgiia for Patriarch of Moskow, Kyiv or Bishop of Rome - this is perhaps less important in the final view than coming closer to Jesus Christ through holy mysteries. But only in church of Patriarch of Moskow do I feel “at home” with Our Lord Jesus Christ and his life-giving mysteries.
God Bless you! My spiritual father agrees with your thinking, those of us on the bottom of the totem pole don’t need to worry about the people at the top and their communion or non-communion with one another. He agrees that since we are members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic Church (whether Catholic or Orthodox) we need to focus on our spiritual life and coming closer to God on our path of Theosis.
 
Nope not for being nasty…for the sake of pointing out that this sort of thing does happen and frankly is common in the United States Roman Catholic Churches for the last few decades, just as Arianism was common in many Churches centuries ago.

The popcorn and punch incident was witnessed by someone I’d met over 13 years ago at a teenage Catholic Summer Camp by a Roman Catholic Priest. Of course it is scandlous and lacks respect for all and yet it happens.

I personally have been inside the two Roman Catholic Churches in Lynchburg, VA. The one Church doesn’t even have a tabernacle anywhere in the Church, but they did have one, you had to leave the Church, go down the hall, around the corner, down another hall and off to the right into the a small room (I believe it used to be a coat room) where you can find the tabernacle. The receptionist/secretary who gave me the tour was so proud of the fact that the tabernacle was missing from the Church, “Can you imagine how awful it would be, if when we go to Church on Sunday we had to kneel and be quiet in Church rather than have the chance to visit with our neighbors who we hadn’t see all week?! It would be just terrible!”.

My point is it happened another other things like this happen in Roman Catholic Churches, but not in Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches, why is that? I don’t know the answer, I just know it doesn’t happen.

Now you say this is not licid and not approved by the Roman Catholic Church; and your are right and yet it still continues. The priests who do and allow such things to take place in their parishes continue to be priests. Bishops even after receiving multiple complaints from some parishioners continue to allow this sort of thing to happen. It boggles the mind! It truly does.
Hello,

I just returned home, from being away a couple days, and have to answer some of these (because I see that things have deteriorated and been misunderstood or ignored).

I’ve explained that ‘whether or not you’ve personally witnessed or heard about such things’…doesn’t matter at all, since they are liturgical abuses!!! These are NOT things that the Church (Latin rite in this instance) allows or stands for (when they know about them)!

Having popcorn and punch (in an actual Latin Rite Catholic Church) as an alternative to the Eucharistic host and wine, is a SEVERE abuse, which (if true), is completely invalid and surmountable to retribution by the bishops.

And I’m sure, if you dig a bit, you’d find ‘Eastern rite Catholic priests’ and ‘Orthodox Church’ priests who have strayed into Liturgical abuses, shortcuts, and other things. Perhaps milder, but we’re speaking of rubrics of the Mass, and not heresy!!! Besides, even if a priest (Eastern or Latin rite) were to preach an actual heresy, it wouldn’t mean anything in light of the Church’s teachings or in what they actually allow!!! You can’t exactly control every individual, at every moment of time (especially if you don’t know that these things are taking place…which is the reason that it’s imperative that they are reported!). Some Catholics (in general) are so misinformed, that they don’t understand the depth of what the Mass is about, and why such things are damaging. As CAtholics, we all need to be better informed about Liturgical worship. That’s across the board, and not just a ‘problem’ for Latin Rite Catholics.

Besides, what does this all mean to you? You aren’t answering to whether or not you believe and are obedient to the Papacy’s supremacy as the seat of unity for the Church, or not.

By the way, I was raised in the Latin Rite, so YOUR particular ‘eyewitness’ accounts of Liturgical abuse, doesn’t have any more weight than my years as a Latin Rite Catholic (and the fact that I never saw something so extreme in my lifetime). If you have any doubt, as to what the Latin Rite teaches in regards to the rubrics of the Mass, just check out the Canon Law.

I wouldn’t get too overly smug about Latin Rite ‘abuses of the Liturgy’, as if it indicates some sort of overall ‘proof that the Latin Rite is heretical’. That’s just ridiculous bunk.

By the way, I wonder why no one commented on the listing of Orthodox Patriarchs who taught heresy, and not one single Pope (or the Roman See) that ever TAUGHT heresy. I think that’s remarkable, yet no one had a remark…all I’ve seen is coming back to points like these.
 
May I suggest that the role of Rome amongst the EC and OCs might better be discussed by starting a new thread. I, as much if not more than anyone, has helped this thread drift, but I do think the direct topic being raised by Byzgirl in response to some of us will probably take the thread in a different direction.

I think that a very interesting place to continue the discussion might be here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=247726

Brother Marduk’s thread did not get the attention it probably deserved. There are also some other threads on the role of the Papacy, where Marduk has some interesting observations on canon laws and conciliar canons which are very helpful.

Whether the discussion moves to that thread or not, I think that thread, and its relatives are worth perusal.

salaam.
 
The topic of the thread was ‘What is Rome Worth to You?’. I think the defense of the Papacy (as the final authority for Catholics – Eastern or Western) is in direct answer to the topic’s thread question. In contrast to my responses, the answer I’m hearing, from a majority of the submissions, is segregated and conditional.

Some are still maintaining that catholic only means universal-- small c-- and denying or ignoring that Catholic with a big C means much more, historically and theologically.
**I have no doubts that you enjoy attending the liturgy of St.John Chrysostom and St.Basil. The question is whether or not there is any place in your thought for the 22 Churches within Catholicism that are not the Latin Church.**You say you don’t want to assimilate them, but in effect, if what you said were true, then they would already be assimilated.

Of course! I am a BYZANTINE CATHOLIC…my children have been baptized as BYZANTINE RITE CATHOLICS. My older brother is a BYZANTINE CATHOLIC PRIEST. I don’t just ‘enjoy’ the Liturgies. They aren’t meant for my personal approval or entertainment anyhow. Regardless, I view them as among the most ancient and beautiful, and I love the words of the prayers. I believe that the Liturgy of the East is beautiful, and I find it more to my liking than the Latin Mass (while both are equally valid).

Also, I’d really like to make a good point here. There is ample room, for the Eastern rites of the Church (one Church, different rites/churches with a small ‘c’). Hypothetically, if you suspect that ‘Rome’ (or I) feel(s) there there is no ‘place for the Eastern rites’ in the Catholic Church (which is a false accusation), or that they have been somehow ‘assimilated’, then I’d like to ask why our Church (a Byzantine Catholic church) has been told to change the fililoque, back to its original form (in the Nicene Creed)? I would imagine, if the Latin Rite wanted to overshadow all the Eastern rites, this change would be unheard of, and certainly not encouraged! Yet, here it is. If you go to the Byzantine churches, of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, you will discover that the fililoque has been changed to reflect the ancient wording (unless an individual priest hasn’t yet enacted the change, which would be against ‘orders’). And that’s not the only item on the list, for a ‘return’ to the customs, rituals, and traditions, that the Pope(s) encourage(d). What’s would be your response to that fact (returning to the original Eastern fililoque)?

Moreover, while I do feel a kinship with other Churches that are Byzantine rite, of which there are several, those others are not my home Church and they are not interchangeable. If someone told me they were Byzantine Catholic, I would assume they were BCC, not that it was some generic term for liking the Divine Liturgy. If I say I am Melkite, it designates what Church I belong to – though I will often say I am Catholic if I want to avoid a conversation: it gets old explaining that Catholicism is made up of a communion of 23 Churches, of which the Roman Catholic Church is only 1 (if by far the largest), and they usually have no idea what you are talking about anyway. Of course most Latins have no idea what you are talking about either.

In return, it also gets old explaining that Catholic means one Church, not several. There are 23 rites of the Catholic Church, all sharing the same faith. Any Catholic can go to any Catholic church, no matter what the rite. That is the beauty of Catholicism. Anywhere in the world, a Catholic can walk into any Catholic church and be at home. It doesn’t matter if it’s an Eastern or Latin Rite, nor whether it has any particular ‘ethnic’ history. That is the problem with the Orthodox Church (as expressed in previous posts). Nationalism has divided them into feeling that other ‘Orthodox’ (of another ethnic Church)’ are neither welcome to their church (small c) nor would they attend any other Orthodox Church (if it wasn’t the same nationality). That’s an error in thinking. Catholicism is about a unity.

From the Byzantine Catholic web site:

we are Catholics **in union with the Bishop of Rome **(the Pope) whom we recognize as the visible Head of the Catholic Church. We are recognized as being “Catholic” by the local Roman Catholic Bishops and the Bishops of the United States of America and the whole world.
Having said that we are "Catholics”, we must now state that we are NOT Roman Catholics, but Catholics who are identified as being Eastern Catholics. AS Catholics, we Eastern and Roman Catholics share the same faith and have the same seven sacraments. The difference is that we Eastern Catholics have a different way or rite of expressing our faith in regards to Liturgy and customs.]At the Last Supper, after Jesus changed bread and wine into His own Body and Blood, He told His disciples to “Do this in Memory of me.” This they did. As the disciples brought the Gospel to different parts of the world, they adapted ceremonies of the Liturgy to the customs and music of that people. In the end, four great centers of Christianity emerged with distinctive Christian customs, but the same faith. These centers were located in the great cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. A couple of centuries later when the capital of the Roman empire was moved to the Eastern city of Byzantium and renamed Constantinople, an adaptation of the Antioch way of celebrating Liturgy was made. Thus a new center of Christianity arose in Constantinople and her ritual became known as the Byzantine Rite. From Constantinople the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe were converted by Sts. Cyril and Methodius and naturally followed the Byzantine Rite. Today the Byzantine Rite is subdivided into ecclesiastical jurisdictions based on ethnic groupings, such as Greek, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Russian, etc

The spiritual heritage of the Byzantine Catholic Church is the same given to us by the Apostles and which matured in the Christian East, during the period of the Byzantine Empire. This heritage includes the doctrines, liturgical practices and underlying theology and spirituality which came from the Christian Church of the Byzantine Empire. This heritage is shared among all of the Christian peoples, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, who trace their spiritual roots to the Great Church of Constantinople, and the Byzantine religious culture which grew from that Church. From the First Millennium, Christians of the Byzantine tradition have referred to themselves as “Orthodox Christians”. Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians who embrace full communion with the Church of Rome and its primate, Pope John Paul II, the successor of St. Peter, the first among the Apostles. "
See: raeshomepage.bravehost.com/byzantine.html
 
Just for example… If an Eastern rite Catholic priest (no matter the rite) should fall into heresy, his bishop would be the first notified. If that would fail (not be addressed properly or the bishop would agree with that heretical teaching)…then it would move up the ladder. Most likely, it wouldn’t get that far along, but the truth of the matter is this…if it did, it would be the Pope of Rome (as the heir of Peter’s Chair) who would have FINAL say in the matter.

Like the ‘Chair of Moses’ (whose authority was not questioned), this final say, as supremely authoritative (because of the promise to Peter–that seat of authority found in the Roman See), is part of that ‘acceptance’ of full communion with the Catholic Church (one Church, one Body).
 
God Bless you! My spiritual father agrees with your thinking, those of us on the bottom of the totem pole don’t need to worry about the people at the top and their communion or non-communion with one another. He agrees that since we are members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic Church (whether Catholic or Orthodox) we need to focus on our spiritual life and coming closer to God on our path of Theosis.
You should worry about it, because this is the same thinking, among Protestants, which has led to the continuance of splintering into many denominations. Generally speaking, Protestants see the ‘Church’ with a small ‘c’…Whether or not they be well-meaning people, who love Jesus…the fact remains that they do NOT have unity amongst themselves. They claim that ‘catholic’ means ‘only’ universal, and that the Church is an invisible entity (not a tangible institution). They claim the Bible as their sole authority, and cannot agree on what it says. As Catholics, we the fulness of the Christian faith. Catholicism is the original ‘Christianity’. Our communion, as Christians, comes with certain conditions, set by Jesus himself. He instituted the Church, as the pillar and foundation of truth, and that Church was founded on the seat of Peter.

While I agree that we have to focus on our own personal journey toward heaven, we are in our best enviroment for doing so, in the Catholic Church.

So, do we care about being in communion? We should. It’s what Christ desires for us (to be of one mind, one body).
 
Byzgirl:

your terminology is NOT the terminology in current use in canon law.

The current terminology:
There are few rites (Latin, Syrian, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Armenian, Antiocene), and many Churches, all united in one Catholic Church.

There are traditions within each Rite: for the Byzantines, they include the Antiochian/Melkite, Greek, and Slavonic, and the 8 Churches in union each fall into one… The Ruthenians and Ukrainians, for example, are both Slavonic tradition Byzantine Catholics. The Syrians include the Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Churches.

In the West, there is One Church, the Latin Church, with several ritual traditions, generally now referred to as Rites and/or Missals, including the Dominican, Carmelite, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and Roman, and several forms in each: Low Mass, High Mass, Sung Mass, “Papal” Mass, and for the Romans and Dominicans, the Ordinary Form.
 
Byzgirl:

your terminology is NOT the terminology in current use in canon law.

The current terminology:
There are few rites (Latin, Syrian, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Armenian, Antiocene), and many Churches, all united in one Catholic Church.

There are traditions within each Rite: for the Byzantines, they include the Antiochian/Melkite, Greek, and Slavonic, and the 8 Churches in union each fall into one… The Ruthenians and Ukrainians, for example, are both Slavonic tradition Byzantine Catholics. The Syrians include the Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Churches.

In the West, there is One Church, the Latin Church, with several ritual traditions, generally now referred to as Rites and/or Missals, including the Dominican, Carmelite, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and Roman, and several forms in each: Low Mass, High Mass, Sung Mass, “Papal” Mass, and for the Romans and Dominicans, the Ordinary Form.
It is not improper to use the term ‘church’ for other bodies, but, as you noted, they are all united in ONE Catholic CHURCH.

The Eastern Churches are either Catholic or dissident, that is, non-Catholic. The dissidents are: a) that body of independent national churches which together form the Orthodox Eastern Church; and b) the Nestorian, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic and Syrian Jacobite churches (small c). These churches have it in common that they were all, one time or another, parts of the Catholic Church and that they all now deny the supreme authority of the Holy See, with the errors added thereto. They all teache the Real Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice (the Mass), confession, veneration of Our Lady and other doctrines and practices which are usually regarded as distinctively Catholic; and all (with the doubtful exceptions of the Copts and Ethiopians) have valid orders and sacraments, so that a dying Catholic may be absolved by and receive communion from one of their priests (as did certain Catholic Japanese during their war with Russia). The dissident Eastern churches must therefore sharply be distinguished from any of the Protestant bodies.

Catholics of the Eastern Rites are divided into those of the Byzantine rite, Catholic Armenians, Chaldeans, Catholic Copts and Ethiopians, Maronites, Catholic Syrians, and those of Malabar. Except the Italo-Greeks, all these bodies are composed of individuals or groups of their descendants who have, mostly in the 16th and 17th centuries, returned to Catholic unity from the corresponding non-Catholic church of their rite, and are often called Uniates. They are as fully and completely Catholic as those of the West. They keep their own liturgies, canon law, and customs not by concession but by right, as Latins hold theirs; in these things they differ greatly among themselves and from the Western church, but in faith, morals, and obedience to the Holy See there is no difference. Nor are they a half-way house between the Latin and dissident Eastern churches; they simply represent what, before the schisms, were the great Eastern patriarchates of the Catholic Church; they do not belong to the Latin part of the Church any more than did Saint John Chyrsostym, St. Athanasius or St. Ephrem: “The Church of Christ is neither Latin nor Greek nor Slavonic, but Catholic: all her children are equal in her sight” (Pope Benedict XV). Of all Christians of Eastern rites, 4.5% are CAtholic; of all Catholics, 2.5% are of Eastern rites; they number over 8 million in all, of whom nearly one million are in North American, mostly Ruthenians.

I’m drawing from the definition of Church as the Church of Christ, the Body of Christ— (of which there is only one).

CHURCH: The whole visible society in communion with the pope, of the Church of Christ, distinct from the Synagogue, instituted directly by Christ, under one head, St. Peter and his successors, the popes, for the purpose of preserving and propogating his teaching, and of safeguarding and using the same means of salvation (sacrifice and sacraments) . It has certain marks by which it may be known. It enjoys the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and Christ has promised to be with it “all days, even to the comsumation of the world” so that it is indefectible. He has commanded all men to join the Church, which is the one ark of salvation for all.
 
Byzgirl, go read the CCEO; it lists the current definitions. I’ll provide a link to an english translation:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM
CCEO:
TITLE 2

Churches Sui Iuris and Rites

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. 2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
The only rite not mentioned in the code is the roman.
 
Byzgirl, go read the CCEO; it lists the current definitions. I’ll provide a link to an english translation:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

The only rite not mentioned in the code is the roman.
Before I spend time reading, can you answer this: whose code of canon law is this, exactly.

Since the Eastern rites of the Church are Catholic, they would not exclude the Latin Rite as an equally valid rite of the Church.

Neither does the Orthodox Church deny the validity of the Roman (Latin) Rite of the Catholic Church. I’d like to know the source and identity of what I’m reading first (whose code of canon law).
 
Its the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, thus CCEO…the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches.

Its a general set of canons for all the eastern Churches.

salaam.
 
Before I spend time reading, can you answer this: whose code of canon law is this, exactly.

Since the Eastern rites of the Church are Catholic, they would not exclude the Latin Rite as an equally valid rite of the Church.

Neither does the Orthodox Church deny the validity of the Roman (Latin) Rite of the Catholic Church. I’d like to know the source and identity of what I’m reading first (whose code of canon law).
Rome has a separate set of laws for the Roman Church, the CIC. The intratext for that is available at vatican.va in both latin and english. The CCEO on the Vatican website is latin only, which is why I referred to the intratext site, since it is obvious you read English.

The Latin Rite has but one church, the Roman Church.

Seriously, tho’ your terminology sounds likeit is that of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Using the outdated terminology obfuscates your message needlessly, and can be confusing to those unfamiliar with it.

Also note: Each of the 22 Eastern Churches in union has the option of additional canon laws. The Ruthenian (ByzCath Met. of Pittsburgh, Sui Iuris, one of those 22 churches) canon law is posted at Byzcath.org IIRC.
 
Rome has a separate set of laws for the Roman Church, the CIC. The intratext for that is available at vatican.va in both latin and english. The CCEO on the Vatican website is latin only, which is why I referred to the intratext site, since it is obvious you read English.

The Latin Rite has but one church, the Roman Church.

Seriously, tho’ your terminology sounds likeit is that of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Using the outdated terminology obfuscates your message needlessly, and can be confusing to those unfamiliar with it.

Also note: Each of the 22 Eastern Churches in union has the option of additional canon laws. The Ruthenian (ByzCath Met. of Pittsburgh, Sui Iuris, one of those 22 churches) canon law is posted at Byzcath.org IIRC.
Technically, the 22 Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris do not have “the option of additional canon laws.”

The CCEO is the only code of canons (which are Church laws governing the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome) for all the Eastern Catholic Churches.

What is meant by Aramis is that each Eastern Catholic Church has the power to adopt “norms” for the implementation of the Eastern Code of Canons and which apply to her particular case. They are in the nature of rules and regulations governing a particular Eastern Catholic Church.

Thus, the BCC adopted her own “Norms” (“THE NORMS OF PARTICULAR LAW OF THE BYZANTINE METROPOLITAN CHURCH SURI IURIS OF PITTSBURGH, U.S.A.”) and were approved by Rome for implementation in 1999. The “canons” cited in the BCC “Norms” are specific canons in the CCEO, not “additionally” legislated by the BCC.

Amado
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top