Rites, Churches, and the "Roman Catholic Church"

[Peter_J]

I’m sorry, but I just don’t like calling us a “communion” (noun).

No need to apologize for your likes or dislikes, but I don’t see how they are relevant here.

Dictionary.com defines the noun “communion” as the following:

Even the definition for “a communion” that you posted says : “a religious group or denomination having a common body of beliefs, doctrines, and practices” (emphasis added) but you seem to entirely ignored the “or” and then run away with the “denomination” part of it. (Why post a quote if you’re then going to ignore what it says? )

Also, you yourself recognize that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, which are not denominations, can each be called a communion, adding that “… there is primacy, but the entire communion isn’t under one hierarchy and under one Bishop like the Catholic Church”. Have you actually bought into the thinking of some Orthodox polemicists that Catholicism isn’t a communion but just an extension of the pope? May I say, yikes.

So in closing… The Catholic Church is more than just a communion. We are the true, one and only, hierarchically, ritualistic, universal Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of Christ.

I assume you know what a false dichotomy is. Recognizing that Catholicism is a communion doesn’t mean that it isn’t the one true church.

That’s just a few comments about your reasoning. I won’t go on because I believe your misstatements mostly speak for themselves.

 

[Peter_J]

A side note, that I didn’t mention in the OP but is also helpful sometimes, is that EC Churches are sometimes called “Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome”.

 

[twf]

No need to apologize for your likes or dislikes, but I don’t see how they are relevant here.

Even the definition for “a communion” that you posted says : “a religious group or denomination having a common body of beliefs, doctrines, and practices” (emphasis added) but you seem to entirely ignored the “or” and then run away with the “denomination” part of it. (Why post a quote if you’re then going to ignore what it says? )

Also, you yourself recognize that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, which are not denominations, can each be called a communion, adding that “… there is primacy, but the entire communion isn’t under one hierarchy and under one Bishop like the Catholic Church”. Have you actually bought into the thinking of some Orthodox polemicists that Catholicism isn’t a communion but just an extension of the pope? May I say, yikes.

I assume you know what a false dichotomy is. Recognizing that Catholicism is a communion doesn’t mean that it isn’t the one true church.

That’s just a few comments about your reasoning. I won’t go on because I believe your misstatements mostly speak for themselves.

Many Catholics would do well to read Pope St. Gregory the Great’s condemnation of the notion of a “universal bishop”. Of course the Catechism states:

895 “The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

 

[phil19034]

No need to apologize for your likes or dislikes, but I don’t see how they are relevant here.

Even the definition for “a communion” that you posted says : “a religious group or denomination having a common body of beliefs, doctrines, and practices” (emphasis added) but you seem to entirely ignored the “or” and then run away with the “denomination” part of it. (Why post a quote if you’re then going to ignore what it says? )

This is an issue of semantics. I don’t believe the Catholic Church is “a religious group.” To me “a religious group” would be a religious community of some sort. The true Church is more than just a "religious group"

Also, you yourself recognize that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, which are not denominations, can each be called a communion, adding that “… there is primacy, but the entire communion isn’t under one hierarchy and under one Bishop like the Catholic Church”. Have you actually bought into the thinking of some Orthodox polemicists that Catholicism isn’t a communion but just an extension of the pope? May I say, yikes.

***I don’t agree with the Orthodox. I know how the relationship between the Eastern Churches and the Pope works.

I think it’s perfectly fine to “operate” our different Rites and Churches as a communion. Each Patriarch and Major Archbishop should be allowed to run his Church without interference from Rome (minus heresy or when asked to intervene). But there is a difference between operating as a communion and calling ourselves a Communion. ***

I assume you know what a false dichotomy is. Recognizing that Catholicism is a communion doesn’t mean that it isn’t the one true church.

***I can accept that the Catholic Church can be considered a “communion” and that operating the Eastern Churches (and any western churches that might return from Protestantism) as communions is a good idea. I read the document from the Vatican about it.

But I do not think it’s wise to make “Communion” part of our name. The Vatican’s document was worried about that too (Section II, part 8). Changing our name from the “Catholic Church” to the “Catholic Communion” or “Roman Communion” can have a negative reaction. It emphasizes that we have differences instead of emphasizing our similarities. No matter our Rite, the Pope is the single voice for the Catholic Church, the sole bishop protected by Christ from teaching error in Faith and Morals. We cannot have each patriarch trying (or perceived) to be publicly equal to the Pope (the Orthodox have this problem amoung themselves, let alone with the Pope).

The better thing to do is to emphasize that we are all the Catholic Church. Let’s stop focusing on our differences. Let’s focus on being Catholic.***

That’s just a few comments about your reasoning.** I won’t go on because I believe your misstatements mostly speak for themselves. ** ***This comment and some others are not very nice, and kind of snide. I’m debating your position. Not calling you dumb, being a jerk, etc.

I believe this is very nuanced. Look at the condition of the Anglican Communion. It’s falling apart. The Lutheran Communion is often splitting up, etc. Calling ourselves the Catholic Church has worked for 2000 years. I don’t think there is a reason to change our name from the “Catholic Church of Christ” to the “Catholic Communion of Christ” or the “Roman Communion of Christ.”***

I hope I’m making more sense. It’s hard sometimes to express complicated ideas via a forum post.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

 

[phil19034]

A side note, that I didn’t mention in the OP but is also helpful sometimes, is that EC Churches are sometimes called “Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome”.

Nothing wrong with this.

Again, I don’t find fault with saying we are a communion (lower case c) of Churches. But I don’t like changing our name from Catholic Church to “Catholic Communion” or “Roman Communion”

The name of the universal Catholic Church should not have the word “Roman” in it at all. The “Roman Catholic Church” is largest part of the Latin Church and the largest part of the Catholic Church. But it’s still just a part.

“Roman Catholic” should refer to only the parishes and people that use the Roman Rite, while the “Roman Church” or “Church of Rome” both refer to the Diocese of Rome.

Technically speaking, a so called “Roman communion” would really refer to the communion of the Roman Rite Dioceses among themselves, while a “Catholic commuion” would be more correctly applied the union of all the Rites and Churches.

However, as I’ve said before I disagree with the idea of chaning our name from “Church” to “Communion”

 

[Vico]

Nothing wrong with this.

Again, I don’t find fault with saying we are a communion (lower case c) of Churches. But I don’t like changing our name from Catholic Church to “Catholic Communion” or “Roman Communion”

The name of the universal Catholic Church should not have the word “Roman” in it at all. The “Roman Catholic Church” is largest part of the Latin Church and the largest part of the Catholic Church. But it’s still just a part.

“Roman Catholic” should refer to only the parishes and people that use the Roman Rite, while the “Roman Church” or “Church of Rome” both refer to the Diocese of Rome.

Technically speaking, a so called “Roman communion” would really refer to the communion of the Roman Rite Dioceses among themselves, while a “Catholic commuion” would be more correctly applied the union of all the Rites and Churches.

However, as I’ve said before I disagree with the idea of chaning our name from “Church” to “Communion”

Do you intend to include all the Latin liturgical rites (Roman, Ambrosian, Braga, Mozarabic, Carthusian) in with the Roman Rite (with uses Anglican, Algonquin, Iroquois, and Zaire)?

 

[phil19034]

Do you intend to include all the Latin liturgical rites (Roman, Ambrosian, Braga, Mozarabic, Carthusian) in with the Roman Rite (with uses Anglican, Algonquin, Iroquois, and Zaire)?

This can be a little tricky because most Churches that celebrate these Rites also celebrate the Roman too.

However, a Catholic who primarily celebrates and identifies with the Ambrosian Rite would be a Ambrosian Catholic. They are still Latin Catholics, but not Roman.

As far as the Usages are concerned, they would technically be Roman, but I would let them decide what to call themselves. I’ve actually heard of some Anglican - Use Catholics call themselves “Anglican Roman Catholics”

BTW - I don’t think the Algonquin & Iroquois Uses are used anymore. They were designed to allow some use of the vernacular. Ever since VII, the reason for these two Uses no longer exists.

 

[Aramis]

It is worth noting that most of the Eastern Rites are named for the cities where they were first codified.

Byzantine: Byzantium
Constantinopolitan: Constantinople
Antiochene: Antioch
Alexandrian: Alexandria

The others are still placename derivatives
Armenian: Armenia
Chaldean: Chaldees.

The Antiochene and Chaldean collectively are the West and East Syrian - from Syria.

These titles are the ones used in canon law.

We don’t see Roum rite - the adjective describing the culture of Byzantium.

And for the western rites.
Bragan, not Portugese
Milanese or Ambrosian, not Northern Italic
Gallican, not Galatian.

The adjectives refer to places or founders, not peoples nor languages.

The Roman Rite is the Rite of Rome. And in Latin, Ritus Romanum. Missale Romanum, not Missale Latinae.

 

[Vico]

This can be a little tricky because most Churches that celebrate these Rites also celebrate the Roman too.

However, a Catholic who primarily celebrates and identifies with the Ambrosian Rite would be a Ambrosian Catholic. They are still Latin Catholics, but not Roman.

As far as the Usages are concerned, they would technically be Roman, but I would let them decide what to call themselves. I’ve actually heard of some Anglican - Use Catholics call themselves “Anglican Roman Catholics”

BTW - I don’t think the Algonquin & Iroquois Uses are used anymore. They were designed to allow some use of the vernacular. Ever since VII, the reason for these two Uses no longer exists.

Those of the Native American vernaculars came into existence after Trent and the priest still used Latin. The sung portions and propers were in the vernacular. In some respects it was like the Mass between 1965 and 1967.

 

[phil19034]

Those of the Native American vernaculars came into existence after Trent and the priest still used Latin. The sung portions and propers were in the vernacular. In some respects it was like the Mass between 1965 and 1967.

Correct

 

[angelic06]

It is interesting more for what terms it does not use. We know that Latin Church is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1571 Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church has restored the diaconate "as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy,"58 while the Churches of the East had always maintained it. …

Except most Latin Catholics I know of do not know they are part of the Latin Church. So, the term Roman Catholic is used, though (unfortunately) many think that Roman Catholic is all there is as far as the Holy Catholic Church is concerned. Go figure.

 

[Vico]

Except most Latin Catholics I know of do not know they are part of the Latin Church. So, the term Roman Catholic is used, though (unfortunately) many think that Roman Catholic is all there is as far as the Holy Catholic Church is concerned. Go figure.

Sounds like they have not studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) entirely through, or even the Compendium (2005), for example:260. Who can baptize?
1256
1284
The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and the priest. In the Latin Church the deacon also can baptize. In case of necessity any person can baptize provided he has the intention of doing what the Church does. This is done by pouring water on the head of the candidate while saying the Trinitarian formula for Baptism: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
Another example from 1967 is the Moto Proprio entitled:

SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM
GENERAL NORMS FOR RESTORING
THE PERMANENT DIACONATE IN THE LATIN CHURCH

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19670618_sacrum-diaconatus_en.html

This is the same title Latin Church that is used in Vatican II (1964) in Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).

 

[Peter_J]

Sounds like they have not studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) entirely through, or even the Compendium (2005),
…

I’d be very surprised if you aren’t right about that.