Pope

[dzheremi]

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me both of you are saying the same thing. Aren’t you?

Possibly! It seems that we might have different operating definitions of “Roman Catholic” (as I was not aware that it is Eastern tradition to use “Roman” to refer to the specific Roman rite only), but perhaps we are making similar/the same points anyway.

Although its use became limited, the Mozarabic Rite was never suppressed.

I never wrote that it was. I wrote that the Roman rite was very contentiously imposed (not by Rome, it should be said, but by King Alfonso VI of Castile after he conquered Toledo; over time it spread throughout the peninsula, despite the resistance of the people). This is what the Mozarabic rite Catholics who I have talked to have told me. When I wrote that Rome should have let it be in the first place (which I should have phrased differently, yes), I meant that they shouldn’t have let it be messed with to begin with, rather than letting it be pushed out by a king who was ostensibly himself Catholic. I don’t think it’s right to praise Rome for “allowing” it now when they didn’t do anything for it then (I’m not saying that Alex did that, I’m just saying I don’t see what’s so great about the current situation). This should be a familiar distinction for you from our private conversations about the lack of church support for Syriac language initiatives in your own church.

 

[malphono]

Possibly! It seems that we might have different operating definitions of “Roman Catholic” (as I was not aware that it is Eastern tradition to use “Roman” to refer to the specific Roman rite only), but perhaps we are making similar/the same points anyway.

Yes, I think so. Now let’s see if Alex concurs.

I never wrote that it was. I wrote that the Roman rite was very contentiously imposed (not by Rome, it should be said, but by King Alfonso VI of Castile after he conquered Toledo; over time it spread throughout the peninsula, despite the resistance of the people). This is what the Mozarabic rite Catholics who I have talked to have told me. When I wrote that Rome should have let it be in the first place (which I should have phrased differently, yes), I meant that they shouldn’t have let it be messed with to begin with, rather than letting it be pushed out by a king who was ostensibly himself Catholic. I don’t think it’s right to praise Rome for “allowing” it now when they didn’t do anything for it then (I’m not saying that Alex did that, I’m just saying I don’t see what’s so great about the current situation).

Understood. I merely added the tidbit about suppression for the benefit of others who may be reading this thread.

As I’ve heard it, the way the Roman Rite began to displace the Mozarabic was similar to what happened north of the Pyrenees with the Gallican, and in Britain with Sarum, York, and Hereford. In Spain, once the Roman Rite began to make inroads, the two (Mozarabic & Roman) were living side-by-side, at least for a while. But, whereas the Roman Rite was growing (whether “organically” or through pressure), the Mozarabic was shrinking. The “royal edict” was, as you noted, the straw that broke the camel’s back, and if not for the heroic efforts of the Archbishop of Toledo (Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros) the Mozarabic Rite would have been suppressed.

This should be a familiar distinction for you from our private conversations about the lack of church support for Syriac language initiatives in your own church.

Indeed it is.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I see. My point is not to say that Mozarabic, Milanese, and other Catholics are users of the Roman rite – obviously that would be wrong – but that because they do not belong to their own sui juris churches (as Eastern and Oriental Catholics do), their particular rites, as old and venerable as they are, are generally considered under the banner of “Latin Rite Catholicism”. How much that general category dovetails with the use of the term “Roman” depends on who you talk to (cf. “Syriac” as a general category, rather than breaking down to “East” or “West” Syrian liturgies, as needed). I take them to be more or less interchangeable (unless, of course, the point is to highlight the different rites within Latin-speaking Catholicism) because that is how they are used here, and elsewhere by people who are actually users of said rites (see, for instance, this forum for Italian Catholics; they are “Cattolici Romani” di “rito Ambrosiano”).

Of course not, because they are Easterners, and members of their own sui juris churches to boot! This is a silly comparison. We’re not talking about hierarchy, we’re talking about what rightly belongs to the Roman Catholic church and what doesn’t. Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Roman, Galician, and other rites within the Latin/Western tradition are Roman Catholic rites. The people that use them are Roman Catholics.

Yes, and the Georgians used to be opponents of Chalcedon. What’s your point?

Of course he did. This is the authentic, native rite of the Iberian peninsula, used during Spain’s Orthodox period. The Roman rite was very contentiously imposed on Spain and Portugal. It is very good that Rome has allowed its resurgence (and that the EO use it in Spain), but also a bit of a sore point that Rome had to “allow” it rather than just leaving it be in the first place. (cf. efforts at “delatinization” by the ECCs/OCCs, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, etc).

Hahaha. Sorry; poorly phrased on my part. I’m not sure how else to phrase it, though. I’ve met Roman Catholics who took Mozarab Catholics to be Eastern Catholics (due to the Arabic influences on their chant form, I suppose) rather than fellow Roman Catholics, but that seems to be symptomatic of Roman ignorance. Hence I was surprised to see an Eastern Catholic (and one who certainly never could be described as “ignorant”!) argue similarly that, by virtue of their rites, certain Roman Catholics are something other than Roman Catholics.

Well, you are feisty today! Good! I need a change from TrentCath!

Me and my four friends have always understood “Roman Catholic” to refer to “rite” only. Perhaps it’s an EC thing, I don’t know. The idea of “Roman Catholic of the Ambrosian Rite” is something quite new to me - thank you for making my day!

I wonder if those same people would refer to me as “Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite?” (I hope not!)

My point about the Mozarabs is that they appear to have had their own Church and Rome not only imposed its Rite on them, but also its rule - there was an article on this which I will try and dig up.

Your point about sui juris Churches is important, but for the longest time and before Vatican II, the Roman view was that all Catholics were directly under the Pope, nomatter which rite was involved (and the notion of “Particular Church” is a recent one as well - just ask TrentCath!).

Fr. Lev Gillet (+memory eternal!) once did refer to Eastern Catholics as “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite” since they were under Rome, subscribed to the same faith as Rome’s (theological/canonical heritage notwithstanding) and were only outwardly different by virtue of their rite. There are many RC’s who would agree with this today and for whom “Particular Church” means a parish church that is particular about, say, what colour of carpet it would like etc.

I think we are dovetailing, but, more importantly, I think we are hammering out a good overall review of what “Roman Catholics” means and has meant.

And, BTW, the Georgians deny they were ever in opposition to Chalcedon - how, I don’t know but there you have it (see “Lives of the Georgian Saints”).

Alex

 

[dzheremi]

Understood. I merely added the tidbit about suppression for the benefit of others who may be reading this thread.

Yes, I could see how someone could come away with that idea from what I wrote, though I didn’t mean anything like that. In this particular case, Rome’s messing with the liturgy was bad enough (changing the words of the institution to match the Roman), but did not amount to suppression in any real way.

As I’ve heard it, the way the Roman Rite began to displace the Mozarabic was similar to what happened north of the Pyrenees with the Gallican, and in Britain with Sarum, York, and Hereford. In Spain, once the Roman Rite began to make inroads, the two (Mozarabic & Roman) were living side-by-side, at least for a while. But, whereas the Roman Rite was growing (whether “organically” or through pressure), the Mozarabic was shrinking. The “royal edict” was, as you noted, the straw that broke the camel’s back, and if not for the heroic efforts of the Archbishop of Toledo (Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros) the Mozarabic Rite would have been suppressed.

Hmm. From what I’ve read (e.g., Yurchenco 1967), Cisneros actually revived Mozarabic chant some centuries after its eventual death at the metaphorical hands of the Roman rite. So it hadn’t be suppressed so much as died and was restored in a modified form. I quote:

“[T]he ancient Spanish rites apparently died out by the end of the 13th century. Late in the 15th century the famous Cardinal Jimenez de Cisneros tried to revive the Mozarabic chant. Under his direction new versions were inscribed in three cantorales. However, the original medieval notation could not be deciphered and so the Cardinal’s work was regarded as questionable.” (source: Misa Flamenca - Misa Mozarabe; Philips PCC 623)

 

[dzheremi]

Well, you are feisty today! Good! I need a change from TrentCath!

I have no idea what that means, but you’re smiling about it, so, uh…you’re welcome?

Me and my four friends have always understood “Roman Catholic” to refer to “rite” only. Perhaps it’s an EC thing, I don’t know. The idea of “Roman Catholic of the Ambrosian Rite” is something quite new to me - thank you for making my day!

I aim to please.

I wonder if those same people would refer to me as “Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite?” (I hope not!)

I dunno. I am not aware of any Byzantines on that particular forum, but given the historical Byzantine presence in some parts of Italy, I’d be a bit surprised (and disappointed) if they didn’t have a more nuanced view than that.

My point about the Mozarabs is that they appear to have had their own Church and Rome not only imposed its Rite on them, but also its rule - there was an article on this which I will try and dig up.

I don’t think Rome proper is to be blamed for Alfonso’s stupidity (though they are certainly not to be celebrated for essentially tacitly supporting him), but I still do not see the point of bringing up a supposedly independent Mozarabic church if it has not existed for centuries.

Your point about sui juris Churches is important, but for the longest time and before Vatican II, the Roman view was that all Catholics were directly under the Pope, nomatter which rite was involved (and the notion of “Particular Church” is a recent one as well - just ask TrentCath!).

This’ll likely get me lynched, but I think that is the de facto situation today, and appeals to some other reality are more wishful thinking than anything. Patriarchs “in-between” don’t amount to much without the power to actually run their own churches without having to consult with or get permission from Rome to do anything. Wasn’t the call from the recent Synod of Middle Eastern bishops “more power to the Patriarchs!”? ***Hmmm… ***

Fr. Lev Gillet (+memory eternal!) once did refer to Eastern Catholics as “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite” since they were under Rome, subscribed to the same faith as Rome’s (theological/canonical heritage notwithstanding) and were only outwardly different by virtue of their rite. There are many RC’s who would agree with this today and for whom “Particular Church” means a parish church that is particular about, say, what colour of carpet it would like etc.

And I would agree with him as well, not out of any Rome-ish feelings, but because by virtue of the Roman Pope’s prerogatives within the agreed-upon ecclesiology of the Roman communion, he is your ultimate arbiter on matters of faith. If you disagree, fine, but again I think that’s the de facto reality of the communion.

And, BTW, the Georgians deny they were ever in opposition to Chalcedon - how, I don’t know but there you have it (see “Lives of the Georgian Saints”).

How indeed.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Brother in Christ,

I too am for “more power to the patriarchs!”

As for Rome’s arbitration, we haven’t had occasion to use it in recent decades.

If anything, whenever Rome tells us to do one thing, we will do the other.

It is always easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission!

Our Patriarch is not in between anyone. He has his Patriarchal Synod which governs the internal affairs of our Church and we listen to him and obey him. His title is not recognized by Rome or Orthodoxy. However, as you well know, several Orthodox patriarchates came into being first by taking the title and instituting a patriarchal form of ecclesial government within their Particular Churches and then, in some cases after centuries, Christendom acknowledged their de facto patriarchal status.

Given all that, I’d say the UGCC is doing very well!

But Eastern Catholics, myself included, would resist (in Jesuit style, to the death) any identification as “Roman Catholics” of whatever Rite. I think Rome has learned to leave us be and unless we break any canons or develop “hereticitis” of some form or another - we’re as orthodox and catholic as they get (and moreso than alot of Western Catholics, if I may make so bold).

That the pope is the ultimate arbiter - well, he kind of was for the entire Church during the first millennium too!

“Roamin’ Catholics” might be an acceptable term for us . . .

Alex

 

[Vico]

he should be a roman catholic, seeing how he is(well, the title recently fell out of use, but) the Patriarch of the West, and head of the Latin sui iuris church

BTW: the title Patriarch of the West was eliminated in 2006:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_general-docs.htm

 

[Aramis]

Are you one of those people who would also argue that the Mozarabic rite Catholics are somehow not Roman Catholics? I don’t understand this idea. If it does not belong properly to its own sui juris church outside of the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t see how it can be argued to not be Roman Catholic. It is a unique rite within the Roman church, but its practitioners are still Roman Catholics. Would you argue similarly that the use of the Liturgy of St. James (and not John Chrysostom) by the Byzantine church in Jerusalem makes those Christians not Byzantines?

The Mozarabic Rite was autonomous for centuries.
So was the Ambrosian and the Bragan.

The head of Rite provides for faithful of those places to have a consistent liturgy of their “native rite”, either as an Extraordinary Form, or even as the local ordinary form.

They are part of the Roman Church in the same way that Anglican Use parishes are; being an Ambrosian makes one a member of the Roman Church Sui Iuris, and the local diocese, but doesn’t make one a Roman Catholic, per se. If a large group of Bragans, Ambrosians, or Mozarabics migrated, they could petition for local use of their native rite.

Dominicans, likewise, become for practical purposes Dominican Rite upon profession; they are still part of the Roman Church Sui Iuris (or their native Church Sui Iuris in a few odd cases), but are now Dominican Rite in praxis, duty, and calendar.

Remember, tho: in the east, one is ascribed by Church Sui Iuris, which includes Rite and subrite, and often recension in one; in the West, rite/sub-rite is identified only weakly, as the church ascription is formally only to the Church Sui Iuris alone. The practical matter tho’, is that those of the various sub-rites in the west as as different from normal Romans as Ukrainian Greek Catholics from Ruthenian Greek Catholics: just enough to be notable.