Rites, Churches, and the "Roman Catholic Church"

[Peter_J]

We’ve had a number of discussions about uses and misuses of the terms church and rite. (E.g. A correct use is saying “the UGCC uses the Byzantine Rite”, an incorrect use is saying that the UGCC is a “rite”.)

But the other side of this misunderstanding is, I think, very rarely brought up: namely, when posters speak of the “Roman Church” (or “Roman Catholic Church”) when there really is no “Roman Church” – there is the Latin Church, which is one of the 23 churches in the Roman Communion (not “Roman Church”).

So I guess the point is, we probably won’t get anywhere unless we address the whole problem.

 

[Peter_J]

(There is of course also the historical use of “Roman Church”, “Church of Rome”, etc by Anglicans and others. I didn’t want to get into that too much here, both because this isn’t the “Non Catholic Religions” forum, and also because Catholic-Anglican relations are much better now than in centuries past.)

 

[R_C]

Ok, there’s a Roman Rite within the Latin Church. The Roman Rite has two forms - ordinary and extraordinary. There are other rites within the Latin Church (Ambrosian, Carmelite, Mozarabic…). The term “rite” here refers to liturgy.

There are other sui iuris Churches besides the Latin Church - we refer to them as the Eastern Catholic Churches (ex. Maronite, Melkite…). We also call them Eastern Catholic Rites (where the term “Rite”, often upper-case, refers to juridical status, not to liturgy. The Maronite Rite has a Maronite liturgical rite, the Melkite Rite does not - it employs the Byzantine liturgical rite, if I am not mistaken).

The term “rite” must be clarified in context.

In terms of the Church, the Church has certain marks - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. One of the later marks recognized is that the Church is Roman (as expressed f.ex. in the First Vatican Council, or in papal teaching such as Mystici Corporis Christi and Humani Generis) because its visible head is the Pope of Rome. So the term “Roman Church” should refer to the One True Church as much as the terms One Church, Holy Church, Catholic Church, and Apostolic Church.

In protestant and Eastern conversations, the term “Roman Church” has often been used to refer to the Latin Church, which is an erroneous usage of the term.

In short: there is One Church, and within it are several juridical bodies in the East and West. One of these - the largest - is the Latin Church, whose leader (“patriarch”) is the Bishop of Rome, and which has several liturgical rites (one of which is termed the Roman rite).

This may be of some help:

• post 1
• post 2
• post 3

 

[phil19034]

(There is of course also the historical use of “Roman Church”, “Church of Rome”, etc by Anglicans and others. I didn’t want to get into that too much here, both because this isn’t the “Non Catholic Religions” forum, and also because Catholic-Anglican relations are much better now than in centuries past.)

The “Church if Rome” is the Diocese of Rome. Just like the “Church of Philadelphia” is the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

I also would not say “Roman Communion” the proper term is “Catholic Church”

The real Roman Catholic Church is the Diocese of Rome. We are technically Latin Catholics (which is what the Eastern Churches called us for over 1000 years) or Roman Rite Catholics.

The Anglicans started calling us Roman because they wanted to call themselves Anglican Catholics and because some didn’t like how the Council of Trent forced some of the English diocese from using 1of the many British Rites that popped up and forced them to use the Roman Rite.

Btw - the reason why we are sometimes called Latin Rite is because the Roman Rite is a Latin Rite and the most widely used of the Latin Rites. The Roman Rite can also be proper called the Latin Rite of Rome just like the Rite of the Coptic Church can be called the Coptic Rite of Alexandria. In both instances the language name comes first and then the Rite’s “home see” or patriarch. Historically, the church “names” were based on the language spoke and came about to differentiate “us vs them” in schism.

So based ok the above, you could also argue that here in the United States we most often use the English Rite of Rome…

In closing if someone wants to call Roman Rite Catholics “Roman Catholics” it’s not wrong because we can call Byzantine Catholics, “Byzantine Catholics.” The name of the whole Church is the “Catholic Church” and the name of the largest group is the Latin Church.

You can’t truly call the Latin Church the “Roman Catholic Church” because we have Cathedrals and Churches in and around Milan, Spain, and Portugal that do not use the Roman Rite.

I hope this makes a little sense

 

[phil19034]

Ok, there’s a Roman Rite within the Latin Church. The Roman Rite has two forms - ordinary and extraordinary. There are other rites within the Latin Church (Ambrosian, Carmelite, Mozarabic…). The term “rite” here refers to liturgy.

There are other sui iuris Churches besides the Latin Church - we refer to them as the Eastern Catholic Churches (ex. Maronite, Melkite…). We also call them Eastern Catholic Rites (where the term “Rite”, often upper-case, refers to juridical status, not to liturgy. The Maronite Rite has a Maronite liturgical rite, the Melkite Rite does not - it employs the Byzantine liturgical rite, if I am not mistaken).

The term “rite” must be clarified in context.

In terms of the Church, the Church has certain marks - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. One of the later marks recognized is that the Church is Roman (as expressed f.ex. in the First Vatican Council, or in papal teaching such as Mystici Corporis Christi and Humani Generis) because its visible head is the Pope of Rome.

But there is One Church, and within it are several juridical bodies. One of these - the largest - is the Latin Church, whose leader (we may say whose ‘patriarch’) is the Bishop of Rome, and which has several liturgical rites (one of which is termed the Roman rite).

This may be of some help:

• post 1
• post 2
• post 3

NOTE: Additionally, The Roman Rite also as currently has two active Uses (Anglican Use and Zaire Use).

Though, now there is a discussion of whether the Anglican Use is now an Anglican Rite because the Personal Ordinates are not under the Bishops of the Roman Rite.

 

[phil19034]

Good links

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT
ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/rites.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/churches_rites_or_sisters.htm
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2east.htm

 

[Milasol]

It is amazing to see how many separated and then came back.
It is also amazing to see how many came back during the protestant revolt.
Others came back in the 1700s and then there are others that came back in the 1900s

Praise God. Let there be one.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

“Roman Church” (or “Roman Catholic Church”)

We do have to admit that Ven. Pius XII made use of them in his encyclicals Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 12:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” …

and Humani Generis, no. 27:

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. …

I can understand Eastern Catholics not liking this manner of speech, and I think its not having found its way into the current Catechism is significant. Then again, with all the attacks on the papacy, identifying the Church as “Roman” can be a sign of loyalty to the Holy See; and if such identification takes place in the context of a papal encyclical, it at least deserves a certain degree of respect.

 

[wynd]

I’ve always wondered, what defines a rite? How different do two variations have to be before they can be considered two rites?

 

[Peter_J]

We do have to admit that Ven. Pius XII made use of them in his encyclicals Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 12:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” …

and Humani Generis, no. 27:

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. …

I can understand Eastern Catholics not liking this manner of speech, and I think its not having found its way into the current Catechism is significant. Then again, with all the attacks on the papacy, identifying the Church as “Roman” can be a sign of loyalty to the Holy See; and if such identification takes place in the context of a papal encyclical, it at least deserves a certain degree of respect.

Good post. I agree that we cannot say that “Roman Church” is wrong in an absolute categorical sense. Nevertheless the fact remains that the Roman Communion is made up of 23 churches (not rites).

 

[phil19034]

We do have to admit that Ven. Pius XII made use of them in his encyclicals Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 12:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” …

and Humani Generis, no. 27:

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. …

I can understand Eastern Catholics not liking this manner of speech, and I think its not having found its way into the current Catechism is significant. Then again, with all the attacks on the papacy, identifying the Church as “Roman” can be a sign of loyalty to the Holy See; and if such identification takes place in the context of a papal encyclical, it at least deserves a certain degree of respect.

What does Pope Pius XII say in Latin? It could be a translation issue, or he may have been attempting to emphasize being in communion with the See of Rome.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Greek people considered themselves to be Romans for hundreds of years after the East - West Schism. They believed that the Byzantine Empire rightly fully inherited and carried on Roman culture. They didn’t not believe that the Latins were Roman anymore. Even the Greek people placed more pride in being of Roman ancestry over Greek until the time around the Greek revolution from the Ottomans.

So Pope Pius XII’s comments might have been in line with that mode of speech …?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

What does Pope Pius XII say in Latin?

From Mystici Corporis Christi, Latin version on the Holy See’s website:

… Iamvero ad definiendam describendamque hanc veracem Christi Ecclesiam — quae sanctā, catholica, apostolica, Romana Ecclesia est …

From Humani Generis, Latin version on the Holy See’s website:

quae quidem docet corpus Christi mysticum et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse

 

[phil19034]

From Mystici Corporis Christi, Latin version on the Holy See’s website:

… Iamvero ad definiendam describendamque hanc veracem Christi Ecclesiam — quae sanctā, catholica, apostolica, Romana Ecclesia est …

From Humani Generis, Latin version on the Holy See’s website:

quae quidem docet corpus Christi mysticum et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse

Well, he was born in Rome. Perhaps he was very pro calling it the “Roman Catholic Church” because he was born in Rome…??

Or perhaps he was trying to distinquish from the Old Catholics who had broken away after Vatican I.

But most likely because he was a Roman.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, he was born in Rome. Perhaps he was very pro calling it the “Roman Catholic Church” because he was born in Rome…?? .

Perhaps … Or perhaps his father or his best friend was named Roman.



Anyhow, I wonder if he also called Eastern Catholic Churches “rites” … But even if he did, that doesn’t mean we have to follow his example, anymore than we have to call the Roman Communion “the Roman Church”.

 

[Vico]

We’ve had a number of discussions about uses and misuses of the terms church and rite. (E.g. A correct use is saying “the UGCC uses the Byzantine Rite”, an incorrect use is saying that the UGCC is a “rite”.)

But the other side of this misunderstanding is, I think, very rarely brought up: namely, when posters speak of the “Roman Church” (or “Roman Catholic Church”) when there really is no “Roman Church” – there is the Latin Church, which is one of the 23 churches in the Roman Communion (not “Roman Church”).

So I guess the point is, we probably won’t get anywhere unless we address the whole problem.

THE DOGMATIC DECREES OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL CONCERNING THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. A.D. 1870. Chapter I. has:
Sancta Catholica Apostolica Romana Ecclesia credit et confitetur, …

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that …

 

[Peter_J]

For the record, I wasn’t trying to start a discussion of pre-Vatican II quotes that refer to the Roman Communion (of 23 churches) as “the Roman Church” … but I do find those quotes interesting nevertheless.

 

[Corki]

We’ve had a number of discussions about uses and misuses of the terms church and rite. (E.g. A correct use is saying “the UGCC uses the Byzantine Rite”, an incorrect use is saying that the UGCC is a “rite”.)

But the other side of this misunderstanding is, I think, very rarely brought up: namely, when posters speak of the “Roman Church” (or “Roman Catholic Church”) when there really is no “Roman Church” – there is the Latin Church, which is one of the 23 churches in the Roman Communion (not “Roman Church”).

So I guess the point is, we probably won’t get anywhere unless we address the whole problem.

Back when I was first learning about the Eastern Churches, I read a description that made sense to me (I think it was on EWTN). All of the Churches that recognize the Pope’s authority are part of the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC consists of both Latin and Eastern Churches. I don’t think that is incorrect.

That being said, I really prefer your use of “Roman Communion” to Roman Catholic Church. Is this a term that is used in Church documents or are you proposing it as new terminology?

 

[Peter_J]

That being said, I really prefer your use of “Roman Communion” to Roman Catholic Church. Is this a term that is used in Church documents or are you proposing it as new terminology?

Sadly, I can’t take any credit for its invention. But I try to do my part by encouraging its use , rather than “Roman Catholic Church” which most bloggers/posters seem to use.

 

[R_C]

Well, he was born in Rome. Perhaps he was very pro calling it the “Roman Catholic Church” because he was born in Rome…??

Or perhaps he was trying to distinquish from the Old Catholics who had broken away after Vatican I.

But most likely because he was a Roman.

When the Vicar of Christ teaches, it matters none where he was born or where he grew up.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

… “Roman Communion” …

If we call every organized body of Christians a Communion, including the Church herself, then we place everyone on equal footing, thus (in theory) avoiding offending anyone and I suppose facilitating ecumenical dialogue. While it might be useful in some situations, as general nomenclature it is, in my opinion, irreverent, in the same way that it would be irreverent to call our Lord “a religious figure” all the time, and not the way, the truth, and the life.