Pope

[henrikhank]

What do you think of the fact that the Pope is Roman Catholic and not Byzantine Catholic?

 

[Aramis]

It’s pretty normal. The Pope has, since Peter left Antioch for Rome, been a Roman bishop.

Now, I’d have no issues if a Byzantine Rite priest or bishop was elected pope.

Well, wait… if it happened to be a bishop of one of the separated churches, like a Russian Orthodox or the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, it would give me serious pause. Still, that wouldn’t really matter as much as the approach taken towards the extant ECCs.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Eastern Catholics are in union with the Pope and Church of Rome in his capacity as “Pope” and successor of St Peter. The Pope’s authority is primarily about faith and morals. If he were anything more than that to the EC Churches, then yes, the fact that he is of the Roman Rite would be a matter of some concern . . .

However, Pope Paul VI, for one, was not “Roman Catholic” but a Catholic of the Ambrosian/Milanese Rite.

Alex

 

[dzheremi]

. .
However, Pope Paul VI, for one, was not “Roman Catholic” but a Catholic of the Ambrosian/Milanese Rite.

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?

 

[adrift]

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?

It is just the Catholic Church.

 

[dzheremi]

Um…I’m not sure how that relates to either Alexander’s point or mine.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Well, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are under the Latin Rite. The Roman Rite are the Churches that use the Roman Rite Mass, which we call today as the OF and EF. So technically when you say Roman Catholic, they are Latin Catholics who use the Roman Rite.

 

[Montalo]

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

 

[mardukm]

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?

I would hope you know that Orientals who use the Liturgy of St. James are not Byzanitine.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JRRTFAN]

What do you think of the fact that the Pope is Roman Catholic and not Byzantine Catholic?

Becasue the Byzantine cardinals voted for him, I think they must want him to be. PaulVI was not a Roman Catholic, by the way. He was an Ambrosian Catholic.

 

[rinnie]

What do you think of the fact that the Pope is Roman Catholic and not Byzantine Catholic?

Does not matter we are from the same family.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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?

It would depend what you mean by “Roman Catholic.”

Western Catholics often take it to mean the same thing as “Catholic” i.e. someone who is under Rome, regardless of rite.

Eastern Catholics have always taken that term to refer to Rite i.e. “Roman Rite” and have always resisted being called “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.” At a recent lecture I attended at the University of Toronto, the prof refer to medieval English as “Sarum Catholics” and defended this use.

The fact is that there are many Eastern Catholics who are under Latin Catholic bishops and that does not make them “Roman Catholics.”

The Mozarabic, Spanish tradition was once a particular Church. St John Maximovych of Shanghai and San Francisco ordained the first Spanish Orthodox priest and hearkened back to this tradition. Rome today has allowed all of Spain to return to the Mozarabic rite, if it so wishes.

A “rite” is more than a particular Liturgy, of course. The Liturgy of St Clement was once universal in the entire Church. The Liturgy of St James a great “foundational” liturgy of the East so it is no wonder that it is used (but very sparingly) in the Byzantine Churches, but in a “Byzantinized” form.

The Old Believers use the Liturgies of St James, St Peter and St Mark as well.

I don’t know about “those people” but if they are an association, I would love to join them!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Becasue the Byzantine cardinals voted for him, I think they must want him to be. PaulVI was not a Roman Catholic, by the way. He was an Ambrosian Catholic.

And so was Pope Pius IX, I believe.

Our old parish priest, a doctor of theology who specialized in Eastern liturgiology (Fr. Bohdan Lypsky - +memory eternal!) once said in one of his parish talks that the Ambrosian Rite of Milan is actually closer in a number of its features to the Byzantine Rite than to the Roman.

Alex

 

[jam070406]

It would depend what you mean by “Roman Catholic.”

Western Catholics often take it to mean the same thing as “Catholic” i.e. someone who is under Rome, regardless of rite.

Eastern Catholics have always taken that term to refer to Rite i.e. “Roman Rite” and have always resisted being called “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.” At a recent lecture I attended at the University of Toronto, the prof refer to medieval English as “Sarum Catholics” and defended this use.

The fact is that there are many Eastern Catholics who are under Latin Catholic bishops and that does not make them “Roman Catholics.”

The Mozarabic, Spanish tradition was once a particular Church. St John Maximovych of Shanghai and San Francisco ordained the first Spanish Orthodox priest and hearkened back to this tradition. Rome today has allowed all of Spain to return to the Mozarabic rite, if it so wishes.

A “rite” is more than a particular Liturgy, of course. The Liturgy of St Clement was once universal in the entire Church. The Liturgy of St James a great “foundational” liturgy of the East so it is no wonder that it is used (but very sparingly) in the Byzantine Churches, but in a “Byzantinized” form.

The Old Believers use the Liturgies of St James, St Peter and St Mark as well.

I don’t know about “those people” but if they are an association, I would love to join them!

Alex

Alex,
What are the differences between the Latin and Mozarabic rites?
Thanks.

 

[jerry_joseph]

I am an eastern rite catholic… I accept pope as leader of catholic church, successor of peter and vicar of christ…

I am in full communion with Holy Roman Catholic church through my eastern catholic rite…Also keeping identity of Our eastern Syrian christian liturgy and tradition

 

[malphono]

What are the differences between the Latin and Mozarabic rites?

There was an excellent [thread=454675]thread[/thread] about the Mozarabic Rite in the TC forum.

 

[dzheremi]

I would hope you know that Orientals who use the Liturgy of St. James are not Byzanitine.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is principally used by the Orientals, yes, but occasionally used by the Byzantines (in my understanding, more often in Jerusalem proper than outside, but even outside at least every year on the feast day of the saint). The entire point of my post was that churches using liturgies other than their characteristic/most widespread ones does not change their essential identity, so it would not have made sense to bring up the churches for which the liturgy of St. James is the most commonly celebrated liturgy.

 

[dzheremi]

It would depend what you mean by “Roman Catholic.”

Western Catholics often take it to mean the same thing as “Catholic” i.e. someone who is under Rome, regardless of rite.

Eastern Catholics have always taken that term to refer to Rite i.e. “Roman Rite” and have always resisted being called “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.”

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”).

The fact is that there are many Eastern Catholics who are under Latin Catholic bishops and that does not make them “Roman Catholics.”

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.

The Mozarabic, Spanish tradition was once a particular Church.

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

St John Maximovych of Shanghai and San Francisco ordained the first Spanish Orthodox priest and hearkened back to this tradition. Rome today has allowed all of Spain to return to the Mozarabic rite, if it so wishes.

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).

I don’t know about “those people” but if they are an association, I would love to join them!

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.

 

[malphono]

PaulVI was not a Roman Catholic, by the way. He was an Ambrosian Catholic.

Paul VI was from the Piedmont and was a priest of the Roman Rite. He was named Archbishop of Milan in 1954, so yes, in that sense he became Ambrosian. That said, though, he came to develop a great love for the Ambrosian Rite, and was instrumental in preserving it after the release of the Novus Ordo.

And so was Pope Pius IX, I believe.

It was Pius XI. Born and raised in Milan, and ordained a priest in the Ambrosian Rite. He was named Archbishop of Milan in 1921 but served only a short time before he was elected Pope in 1922.

Our old parish priest, a doctor of theology who specialized in Eastern liturgiology (Fr. Bohdan Lypsky - +memory eternal!) once said in one of his parish talks that the Ambrosian Rite of Milan is actually closer in a number of its features to the Byzantine Rite than to the Roman.

Yes, that’s true.

 

[malphono]

Alexander Roman;8236318:

It would depend what you mean by “Roman Catholic.”

Western Catholics often take it to mean the same thing as “Catholic” i.e. someone who is under Rome, regardless of rite.

Eastern Catholics have always taken that term to refer to Rite i.e. “Roman Rite” and have always resisted being called “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.”

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”).

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

Alexander Roman;8236318:

The Mozarabic, Spanish tradition was once a particular Church. St John Maximovych of Shanghai and San Francisco ordained the first Spanish Orthodox priest and hearkened back to this tradition. Rome today has allowed all of Spain to return to the Mozarabic rite, if it so wishes.

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).

Although its use became limited, the Mozarabic Rite was never suppressed. Even now, there is no blanket permission to use the Mozarabic Rite in Spain. It continues to be used in Toledo, and within the past few years, the abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos asked for, and was granted, general permission to use it. Elsewhere in Spain, permission is, as I understand it, granted on an ad-hoc basis.