I’ve been to our Western parishes who are Latin. The “Old Catholics” would be Latin, but neither are under the Vatican.
Is the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem Eastern or Western?
Isa,
The Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem is Western, that is, they fall under the Western/Latin Church. Likewise, those Chinese, Indian, and other Asian Christians who are members of the Latin Church are considered Western by Church Sui Iuris and Rite, though Eastern by ethnicity.
We dont’ have “Eastern Orthodox Churches.” If you speak of sui juris Churches amongst yourselves, we have the autocephalous Churches, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow etc. They may be Eastern, but that doesn’t mean they get lumped together. There may be a question about Churches like Poland, the Czech and Slovak Lands (which are autocephalous) and Finland (which is autonomous) being Eastern Rites in a “Western” Church. The Orthodox Church of France has been Western Rite, and even had its own bishops, not within irregularities.
By the way, whenever I refer to the terms Western and Eastern/Oriental, I’m not referring to ethnicities. We have Western white Americans in the Chaldean Church, and so they are Western by ethnicity, but Eastern by Church and Rite.
I, and scholarship in general, use the terms Eastern Orthodox Churches in order to differentiate them from the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Like for example, Orthodoxwiki refers to you guys as Eastern Orthodox Churches:
orthodoxwiki.org/Agreed_Official_Statements_on_Christology_with_the_Catholic_and_Eastern_Orthodox_Churches#1990_A.D.—Between_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Church_and_Eastern_Orthodox_.5BChalcedonian.5D_Churches.29
I also sometimes simply refer to you guys as Orthodox Churches or Orthodox Communion.
I looked up the Orthodox Church of France here:
orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church_of_France
It says that they were an autonomous diocese of Western Rite parishes in France formed by the Church of Russia. Since they were a diocese, then that would make them a local Church, but according to the entry, they are no longer in communion with the Orthodox Churches.
The Vatican calls the Mozarabic and Milanese/Ambrosian rites rites, not sui juris churches, although both have their sees, bishops, etc. (the later having their own popes of Rome). How is how are they rites and not churches. How is this different from the WRO?
The Moz/Mil/Amb rites are recessions or adaptations of the Roman Rite, and fall under the Latin Church Sui Iuris, under the Latin Patriarch (Pope). They are not Churches Sui Iuris, however, each diocese of them, and all dioceses in general, are local Churches. There are three levels of Churches in the Catholic Church: universal, sui iuris, and local.
If there currently are WRO dioceses/eparchies with bishops, then we would consider them local Churches. However, I would consider them partially Western and not fully Western because their Western rites are modified with Byzantine interpolations as it says on the Orthodox Church of France entry above.
Do you mean that the are not independent in their governance, not Western, or anomalies?
I mean that they belong to an Eastern Church like the Russian Church or the Antiochian Church, unless they have their own dioceses and bishops, in which case they would be local Churches, and not merely rites.
Because we are self-governing or autonomous Churches, that are in full communion with the Western/Latin self-governing Church, but are not parts of that Church (like how a rite is part of a Church, or like how an eparchy is part of a Patriarchal Church Sui Iuris). We are not rites, and not dioceses/eparchies, that are parts of the Latin Church Sui Iuris. We utilize our own various rites and we are eparchies in our own various Churches Sui Iuris.
Some of the thinks on the Latinization thread, among other things, blurrs this.
We are not called to be Latinized. We are called by the Catholic Churches, first of them the Church of Rome, to restore fully our traditions. Officially, we are considered Churches of our own laws, Churches that possess our own theologies, liturgies, spiritualities, and disciplines.
And what of the Latin ordinaries in the areas/regions of said sui juris?
The Latin bishops in the traditionally Eastern/Oriental areas are bishops of their own local Churches (Latin dioceses), and fall under the Latin Church Sui Iuris.
We at least admit the existence of more than one bishop in a city is abnormal, but I am told that the exitence of your three patriarchs in Antioch is normal. How so?
Between the Maronite Church, Syriac Church, and Melkite Church, the first two are of the Antiochene tradition, but are still distinct enough within the Antiochene tradition, that is, a difference in the adaptation of the Antiochene tradition among the Maronite people versus the adaptation of it among the Syriac people. I suppose that may be the reason for the two Patriarchs there, one for each of the group of people involved.
The Melkite Church is of the Greek Catholic (or Constantinopolitan) tradition, which is different from the Antiochene tradition, and thereby the existence of another Patriarch in order to serve the people who have inherited this Greek tradition.
God bless,
Rony
