The Universal Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ak_Fossil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ak_Fossil

Guest
From another thread within the Eastern Catholicism there was an entry in one of the threads that specified 23 individual Catholic Churches, that made up the Universal Catholic Church.

Within an email, that I had downloaded from the site of maryourmother.net/Eastern.html there were 18 pages describing the 22 individual Catholic Churches. Of the ones in the first paragraph, I could not find the Macedonian Greek Catholic Church(within Byzantium) and on page 9 of the 18pgs, it said that the Albanian Catholic Church has been almost completely absorbed by the Latin rite.

My question for this thread, which is right— 22 or 23 individual Catholic Churches, to be used for educational purposes?
 
This was posted by another poster:

Originally Posted by Rolltide
I agree with the posters above… this is almost certainly an Eastern Catholic bishop.

The Catholic Church is actually comprised of 23 individual Catholic Churches, all with their own traditions, liturgies, and regulations, and all in complete union with Rome. The Latin branch is so overwhelmingly large, however, that even most Catholics don’t know that these other branches exist. They include:

The Western (Latin) Liturgical Tradition:
  1. The Latin Catholic Church
The Alexandrian Liturgical Tradition:
2) The Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate) - Egypt (1741)
3) The Ethiopian Catholic Church (metropolia) - Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)

The Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) Liturgical Tradition:
4) Maronite Church (patriarchate) - Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (never separated, union re-affirmed 1182)
5) Syriac Catholic Church (patriarchate) - Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
6) Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate) - India, United States (1930)

The Armenian Liturgical Tradition:
7) Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate) - Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)

The Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
8) Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate) - Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
9) Syro-Malabar Church (major archiepiscopate) - India, United States (at latest, 1599)

The Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
10) Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church (apostolic administration - Albania (1628)
11) Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present) - Belarus (1596)
12) Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate) - Bulgaria (1861)
13) Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate) - Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
14) Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates) - Greece, Turkey (1829)
15) Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate) - Hungary (1646)
16) Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy) - Italy (Never separated)
17) Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate) - Republic of Macedonia (1918)
18) Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate) - Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Jerusalem, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
19) Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate) - Romania, United States (1697)
20) Russian Byzantine Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs) - Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
21) Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate) - United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
22) Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
23) Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate) - Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

Virtually all of the “Eastern” Catholic Churches are groups from the various Orthodox Churches which have since reunified (with the exception of the Maronites and the Italo-Albanians, which have always been in union).
 
Ak_Fossil said:
Within an email, that I had downloaded from the site of maryourmother.net/Eastern.html there were 18 pages describing the 22 individual Catholic Churches. Of the ones in the first paragraph, I could not find the Macedonian Greek Catholic Church(within Byzantium)
Click to expand...
That Church is mentioned. They call it “The Krizevci Catholic Church of Croatia and Yugoslavia”.

God bless,
Peter.
 
The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has always been in Communion as well.
 
Wow that is embarrassing. I guess there are 23 Catholic churches. I guess that page, while informative didn’t have this one because it was founded in 1918.

There does seem to be a Macedonian Catholic Church
 
Hesychios said:
I presume you have a source for this. Care to share it?
Click to expand...
stfrancisxavierschurch.org/html/syro.html

As Pope Pius XII said, “during the centuries that India was cut off from the West and despite many trying vicissitudes, the Christian communities formed by the apostle conserved intact the legacy he left them, and as soon as the sea passage at the close of the 15th century offered a link with their fellow christians of the West, the union with them was spontaneous (AAS, XLV (1953) PP. 96.97). Thus the Syro-Malabar Church, as Pope John Paul II said, “Never severed from the communion with the Church of Rome, in a continuity that the enormous geographic distance has never been able to break. (“insegnamenti Giovanni Paulo II,” III/2, Roma, 1980, P. 513). (emphasis added)
 
johnnykins said:
stfrancisxavierschurch.org/html/syro.html

As Pope Pius XII said, “during the centuries that India was cut off from the West and despite many trying vicissitudes, the Christian communities formed by the apostle conserved intact the legacy he left them, and as soon as the sea passage at the close of the 15th century offered a link with their fellow christians of the West, the union with them was spontaneous (AAS, XLV (1953) PP. 96.97). Thus the Syro-Malabar Church, as Pope John Paul II said, “Never severed from the communion with the Church of Rome, in a continuity that the enormous geographic distance has never been able to break. (“insegnamenti Giovanni Paulo II,” III/2, Roma, 1980, P. 513). (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
This does not constitute evidence, and I am disappointed that quotes of Bishops of Rome can be used in this way, to imply something that was never there.

What was the motivation of these two Supreme Pontiffs to make such statements?

Michael
 
Hesychios said:
This does not constitute evidence, and I am disappointed that quotes of Bishops of Rome can be used in this way, to imply something that was never there.

What was the motivation of these two Supreme Pontiffs to make such statements?

Michael
Click to expand...
You asked for a source. You then essentially called the Pope a liar engaged in double talk. Indeed your own post is double talk - you strongly imply he lied but are not forthright enough to say it - and disingenous enough to offer no source for you own position.

I presume you have a source for such egregious calumny. Of course, when I have asked you for a source in the past - you never have offered one. So where is one now?
 
johnnykins said:
You asked for a source. You then essentially called the Pope a liar engaged in double talk. Indeed your own post is double talk - you strongly imply he lied but are not forthright enough to say it - and disingenous enough to offer no source for you own position.

I presume you have a source for such egregious calumny. Of course, when I have asked you for a source in the past - you never have offered one. So where is one now?
Click to expand...
I am saddened to observe the birth of a new Catholic myth right here on this internet forum.

As it stands, the Syro-Malabar church was a part of the Church of the East for many many centuries. As part of that church it was indeed out of communion with Rome, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That would be like suggesting that the church of Paris never broke with Constantinople, when everyone knows it followed Rome.

I suppose that in the future we will have local parish priests in that church repeating this nonsense as if it were fact, and pointing to these quotes as proof!

Are we to imagine that there are now three Sui Iuris churches that never broke with Rome? Why not a fourth…any takers? I suggest the Eritrean Catholic church, that should be obscure and bedazzling enough for you.

Michael
 
Hesychios said:
I am saddened to observe the birth of a new Catholic myth right here on this internet forum.

As it stands, the Syro-Malabar church was a part of the Church of the East for many many centuries. As part of that church it was indeed out of communion with Rome, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That would be like suggesting that the church of Paris never broke with Constantinople, when everyone knows it followed Rome.

I suppose that in the future we will have local parish priests in that church repeating this nonsense as if it were fact, and pointing to these quotes as proof!

Are we to imagine that there are now three Sui Iuris churches that never broke with Rome? Why not a fourth…any takers? I suggest the Eritrean Catholic church, that should be obscure and bedazzling enough for you.

Michael
Click to expand...
“I presume you have a source for this. Care to share it?”

Of course not - you never do - you just say things without any support. Why you can insult the Popes and Papacy - say they are lying and never offer any support other than your own unvarnished opinion.
 
@Hesychios:

You can not support your point of view with anything other than your attempt to support your Orthodox bias. We have used reputable sources that agree with us, yet yours does not. I may ask what concern is it to you whether the Syro-Malabarian Catholic Church was always in Communion or not?
 
holdencaulfield said:
@Hesychios:

You can not support your point of view with anything other than your attempt to support your Orthodox bias. We have used reputable sources that agree with us, yet yours does not. I may ask what concern is it to you whether the Syro-Malabarian Catholic Church was always in Communion or not?
Click to expand...
Your own link says it all…
From early centuries the Church of Saint Thomas Christians came into life-relation with the Christian communities that came to be known as East Syrian Church. This relationship made the Saint Thomas Christians share the liturgical, spiritual and other ecclesiastical traditions with the East Syrian Church.Therefore they are grouped under Chaldean Rite.[4]At the same time the Christians of St. Thomas kept their distinctive character especially in Church administration and socio-cultural and ascetic- spiritual life.
At least from the 4th century until the end of the 16th century the Bishops of the Church of Malabar were sent from the East Syrian Church, appointed by the Patriarch of the East Syrian Church. While the bishops originally hailing from Persia who arrived here were placed in charge of liturgy, the administration of the church remained under the control of the local Archdeacon, who was also the head of the local community.[5]
The bishops who came from the East Syrian Church, were concerned with purely and exclusively spiritual. Essentially, Thomas Christians followed three distinct ways of activity in their religious sphere: their liturgy was of East Syrian Church; their culture was purely Indian. They had their own style of life: austere and humble way of life with high thinking; their governance of Church was through Palliyogam, Synod, etc. as is prevalent in Oriental Churches.

Arrival of Portuguese in Malabar

Saint Thomas Christians remained in communion with the Church of the East until their encounter with the Portuguese in 1498.
Click to expand...
Holden, I am surprised at your selective reading, please don’t put blinders on.

Imagine citing exerpts of speeches as historical fact!

The quote you cite is way down in the page, directly after the article states repeatedly that the Saint Thomas Christians were in communion with the Church of the East, which we know to have been Nestorian according to the conventional terminology (we like to refrain from this term today out of respect)…

These Christians received their bishops from the Patriarchs of the Church of the East, and their bishops participated in Church of East Councils and Synods.

I know of no legitimate Catholic source that ever made the claim that this church never broke communion with Rome, and I stand by my assertion that any Papal quotes implying such a thing are deceiving. Of course we know that the Popes never claimed to be impeccable. 🤷 Neither did I and neither did you.

But one does not need Wkipedia to know these things.
The Old Party (Pazhayakuttukar) remained in communion with Rome and constitutes the Syro-Malabar Church.The Present Syro-Malabar Church is only a fraction of the ancient Indian Church of the Thomas Christians.
Click to expand...
Refers to the period after the Coonan Cross incident, when the majority of the parishes expelled the Jesuits and attempted to reestablish ties with the Church of the East. Not wholly successful, they did eventually join to the Antiochian Patriarchate (Jacobite).

By this time the Portuguese Jesuits had become so hated by the majority of the Christian Indians of Kerala that the Pope had to send in Italian Carmelites to replace them and try to undo the generations of damage. They were only partially successful, which is why the quote states that the present church is a fraction of the original.

You will notice that the Carmelites (in multiple newer branches) are really big in the Syro-Malabar church today as a result of this close connection.

Michael
 
Hello old friend,
East_and_West said:
Michael, did they explicitly break communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
Did Paris explicitly break from Constantinople? Did Seville or Milan?

If the Old Catholics of Europe had suddenly become Orthodox, and the Patriarch had said “the Old Catholics of northern Europe never broke with Constantinople” we would all know that it was a crock and a sham, because they followed Rome until 1870, even if none of the bishops of northern Europe ever made any such pronouncement himself, they constituted the church of the west after the schism…one body.

Enough with the semantical gamesmanship. I never heard of the preposterous claim before today and I am shocked anyone takes it seriously.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top