Three western Churches?

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know what you mean about others thinking your post is about them. Naturally someone who had not yet posted on this thread would not think that anything was about them. Anyway I only defended you, saying that I assume if you are still Catholic (your current statement for “religion” makes that unclear) then you accept whatever you believe the Church has taught on the subject. Of course I know such a statement got me into a debate with you in the past and I might have guessed it would do so again, but I’ll keep making the assumption for any Catholic until I see clear evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, in one sense each diocese is its own local church, with the bishop as its head by the authority of Jesus Christ the High Priest. In another sense all Catholics, East and West, are a single Church with the Vicar of Christ as its visible head, under the true Head which is Christ. In still another sense, in between the other two at least in terms of the size of the groups though probably less fundamental to the supernatural structure of the Church than either of the others, there are the various “sui iuris” Churches, including the Latin rite Church and the various Eastern Catholic Churches. I admit I am a little confused when bodies are listed as such Churches that do not currently have their own bishops, but certainly the Latin rite Church and the majority of Eastern Catholic Churches qualify, and I assume there is some piece of the puzzle I am missing that would explain why a few bishopless bodies are likewise listed among the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Still other divisions of the Church can be brought up. For example, taking a still wider view of the Church we can divide her into the Church Militant here on earth, the Church Suffering in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in Heaven.

It’s important that we do not emphasize any one of these uses of the word “church” to the point that we deny any of the others.

Regarding the term “Latin Church” in particular, this is synonymous with “Latin rite Church” but not with “Roman Church” or “Roman Catholic Church.” The former two terms do not include Eastern Catholics, while the latter two include them and all Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome, at least the way the terms are most commonly used (in the real world, as opposed to on these forums).

Well, I can’t accept whatever the Church teaches if I do not know what it is

So how is the “One Church” achieved? Is each diocese a part of the One Church, ie. a piece? Per the two lung theory of our recent Popes, it means the one body of Christ has divisions within it coming together to form one body. Which means each Church is a piece of the whole instead of the whole by itself. So while each diocese is a Church unto itself, it is not complete if not in union with Rome and thus just a small piece of the body detached from the vital organ. Is this accurate?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, I can’t accept whatever the Church teaches if I do not know what it is

So how is the “One Church” achieved? Is each diocese a part of the One Church, ie. a piece? Per the two lung theory of our recent Popes, it means the one body of Christ has divisions within it coming together to form one body. Which means each Church is a piece of the whole instead of the whole by itself. So while each diocese is a Church unto itself, it is not complete if not in union with Rome and thus just a small piece of the body detached from the vital organ. Is this accurate?

I suppose it is accurate in a sense analogous to that in which the Church Militant is not the whole Church, but just a piece of it. Yet there is another, very real sense in which the Church on earth can be seen as the complete Church.

Similarly there is a kind of completeness to the local Church with its bishop, lower priests, deacons, and faithful, analogous to the Temple with the High Priest, lower priests, Levites, and other Israelites. This local completeness is centered around the Eucharist, which we all know is the “source and summit of the Christian life.” Yet on the other hand the bishops are also collectivly a college with the bishop of Rome at its head, and so if one of these local Churches with its bishop, or a larger group, separated from that visible head then they would separate from the Church in a wider sense.

 

[BVMFatima]

Regarding the term “Latin Church” in particular, this is synonymous with “Latin rite Church” but not with “Roman Church” or “Roman Catholic Church.” The former two terms do not include Eastern Catholics, while the latter two include them and all Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome, at least the way the terms are most commonly used (in the real world, as opposed to on these forums).

I disagree. Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics, they are however in communion with the Church of Rome. The Church even states a difference between Roman and Eastern Catholics.

A quote from Christi Nomen: Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On Propagation Of The Faith And Eastern Churches.

" From these same letters you have learned the procedures by which, in consultation with the Eastern patriarchs, we have investigated how to bring about more readily and desired end, namely the union of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches"

A quote from Sala Stampa Della Santa Sede: Synodus Episcoporum Bollettino

" But many Eastern Catholics coming from the Middle East do not do this and simply become Roman Catholic "

I have way more quotes but I will save them for another time

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I disagree. Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics, they are however in communion with the Church of Rome. The Church even states a difference between Roman and Eastern Catholics.

A quote from Christi Nomen: Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On Propagation Of The Faith And Eastern Churches.

" From these same letters you have learned the procedures by which, in consultation with the Eastern patriarchs, we have investigated how to bring about more readily and desired end, namely the union of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches"

A quote from Sala Stampa Della Santa Sede: Synodus Episcoporum Bollettino

" But many Eastern Catholics coming from the Middle East do not do this and simply become Roman Catholic "

I have way more quotes but I will save them for another time

Ok, there is a lot of confusion and inconsistency on the matter of the words “Roman” and “Latin”, just at there is for the word “rite”. It is impossible for anyone to propose a set of definitions which will not be contradicted by some historical or modern sources, and I apologize if I’ve committed this over-simplification on this and other threads. Ultimately insisting that Eastern Catholics are or are not Roman Catholics is probably as futile as insisting that the Maronites are or are not “a Rite.” I have been using common usage as my guide for separating mainstream definitions from exceptional usages, but this guide like any other will inevitably fail in many cases when terminology has been this inconsistent.

It might be good for the Church to come out with a sort of official glossary and announce that from now on all uses contrary to this glossary are to be suppressed. Even then though we would have to acknowledge that the terms have been used in different ways in the past, and not force our own definitions on past statements in which the same terms were used differently.

In any case it is essential not to be drawn into mere word-fights but to stay focused on substantial issues. The structure of the Church is a substantial issue. Whether and when the words “Roman” and “Latin” can be used interchangeably is an insubstantial word-fight, so long as both sides understand what the other means when they use their preferred terminology.

 

[BVMFatima]

Ok, there is a lot of confusion and inconsistency on the matter of the words “Roman” and “Latin”, just at there is for the word “rite”. It is impossible for anyone to propose a set of definitions which will not be contradicted by some historical or modern sources, and I apologize if I’ve committed this over-simplification on this and other threads. Ultimately insisting that Eastern Catholics are or are not Roman Catholics is probably as futile as insisting that the Maronites are or are not “a Rite.” I have been using common usage as my guide for separating mainstream definitions from exceptional usages, but this guide like any other will inevitably fail in many cases when terminology has been this inconsistent.

It might be good for the Church to come out with a sort of official glossary and announce that from now on all uses contrary to this glossary are to be suppressed. Even then though we would have to acknowledge that the terms have been used in different ways in the past, and not force our own definitions on past statements in which the same terms were used differently.

In any case it is essential not to be drawn into mere word-fights but to stay focused on substantial issues. The structure of the Church is a substantial issue. Whether and when the words “Roman” and “Latin” can be used interchangeably is an insubstantial word-fight, so long as both sides understand what the other means when they use their preferred terminology.

A quote from the Catholic encyclopedia on the term Latin Church:

It follows also that the expressionLatin(or evenRoman)Catholicis quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not onlyCatholicsbut also members of theLatinorRomanpatriarchate. AEasternRiteCatholicon the other hand is aByzantine, orArmenian, orMaroniteCatholic. But apersonwho is inschismwith theHoly Seeis not, of course, admitted byCatholicsto be any kind ofCatholic*at all.

 

[twf]

I know this is the Traditional Forum, so I hope I don’t get into trouble for asking this here, but are Traditional Catholics normally unaware that each body of Christians with a valid bishop and Sacraments is considered a “church” proper? I don’t understand how one can be confused about calling a local church a “Church.” Even at the time of Vatican 1, the Eastern Orthodox were referred to as a “Church.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I imagine that many Latin Catholics aren’t aware of this teaching (unfortunately). The Church teaches, of course, that, as you say, each body of the faithful with a bishop is a true and proper church; that is, the faithful of each diocese (or equivalent) are the body and each bishop is the head. Constantine asked earlier if a diocese could be said to constitute the Church in its own right. I think in a sense it does. Catholic theology is very mystical and nuanced - often there is no simple “yes or no” or “either / or” answer. This is how I see it - just as Christ is said to be truly and fully present in each and every crumb of the Eucharistic Host, so is the Christ fully present in each and every body of the faithful under a bishop. The entire host is Christ: each crumb is Christ. The entire Church around the world is the Church: each diocese/eparchy is the Church. The Church is the mystical extension of the Incarnation - and as Christ is omnipresent, I do not think it a stretch to imagine that both the Church Universal and each local Church can be said to be His body. The Pope is Christ the Head, but so is each local bishop in a very real sense. Yet there is one body, not many, and one head, not many. It is a great mystery - as are so many teachings of our faith.

From the Catechism:

832 "The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."312

833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."314

That being said, there is no Ambrosian Church, per se, as it is simply the Rite used at some liturgies in the Archdiocese of Milan. The Archdiocese of Milan, under its metropolitan, can be said to be a Church, but the Ambrosian Rite used by some members of that Church is not a church in and of itself. As I understand it, most parishes in Milan still use the Roman Rite. Canonically, the Archdiocese is part of the Latin Church, which is the only Western Church sui iuris.

 

[malphono]

That being said, there is no Ambrosian Church, per se, as it is simply the Rite used at some liturgies in the Archdiocese of Milan. The Archdiocese of Milan, under its metropolitan, can be said to be a Church, but the Ambrosian Rite used by some members of that Church is not a church in and of itself. As I understand it, most parishes in Milan still use the Roman Rite. Canonically, the Archdiocese is part of the Latin Church, which is the only Western Church sui iuris.

I believe that within the Archdiocese of Milan, churches (including, of course, the people therein) are Ambrosian unless they are in the charge of a non-Ambrosian religious Order or are otherwise exempt. IOW it’s not a matter of pick-and-choose. Those parishes in Milan that use the Roman Rite are one of the two. Please keep in mind that one of the titles of the Archbishop of Milan is “Capo Rito” (“head of the rite”) and if the norm wasn’t Ambrosian in the first place, that title would make no sense. But the norm in Milan IS Ambroasian, ergo the title **does **make sense.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But isn’t it Roman Catholic teaching that the diocese apart from the Pope is not a true diocese? Therefore the existence of every diocese is dependent on the Pope, not just the diocese itself.

the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm

It comes from a section called: “The Pope’s Power Derived Immediately From Christ; That Of The Bishops, Through The Mediation Of The Pope”

So obviously this speaks of the Pope as some kind of super bishop who is above all bishops and the only one who has the divine authority to be a bishop. Doesn’t this disprove a Eucharistic model among the Churches in the Catholic Church? The understanding here is that a bishop is only a bishop if the Pope says he is a bishop, or if he is in communion with the Pope (which by itself is contradictory to the Sacramental theology of the RC Church that ordination is permanent and a schismatic bishop is still a bishop).

Further on that page, it says, “Their jurisdiction, although fully subordinated to that of the Sovereign Pontiff…”. Doesn’t this suggest that every diocese rightfully belongs to the Pope as well as the Local Ordinary? That part of the article continues to say that each bishop has rightful claim by divine law to their local jurisdiction, but it cannot be apart from the Pope. So in short, every diocese simply has two bishops.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

A quote from the Catholic encyclopedia on the term Latin Church:

It follows also that the expressionLatin(or evenRoman)Catholicis quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not onlyCatholicsbut also members of theLatinorRomanpatriarchate. AEasternRiteCatholicon the other hand is aByzantine, orArmenian, orMaroniteCatholic. But apersonwho is inschismwith theHoly Seeis not, of course, admitted byCatholicsto be any kind ofCatholic*at all.

That is a bizarre statement, as we do not usually speak of any “Latin or Roman patriarchate”.

Here is an article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia as provided on this website on the term “Roman Catholic”, which strongly prefers the rejection of the term entirely but acknowledges that it may be used to simply mean “Catholic.” The author seems unaware of the use to mean “Latin Catholic” though as you have demonstrated this had already occurred at least occasionally.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic

The Wikipedia article on the subject is incoherent, probably due to combative counter-editing, but lists the following documents as ones in which “Roman Catholic” is used in the sense of “Catholic” in Papal documents:

Divini Illius Magistri (Pius XI, 1929)
Humani generis (Pius XII, 1950)
“Common Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury His Grace Rowan Williams” (2006)
“Common Declaration: Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I” (2006)

You won’t find a huge number of formal Church documents using the term in any sense, as it is not a commonly used name except in the English-speaking world, where Anglicans pushed its use to distinguish our kind of Catholic from the Anglo-Catholics.

I would find the exact quotes in the documents above if I had time. Or rather, quite honestly, if I had not been on CAF for hours and felt the need to soon call it a day.

If you would like to continue this word-fight, may I suggest we do so by private message? So long as it remains solely a matter of the proper definition of words, it is the vapid and counterproductive kind of dispute St. Paul warned against. Also it is a little off topic. If there is a practical ecclesiological point you mean to imply by insisting on the “Latin Catholic” definition of “Roman Catholic”, then I’d invite you to make that point explicitly.

 

[YoungTradCath]

A bishop’s administrative role in a diocese comes from the Pope, but a bishop still has (perhaps a vague and somewhat ethereal) spiritual authority over other Catholics even if he is not an ordinary. For example: say a titular bishop is the “swing vote” at an ecumenical council in which a proposition is deadlocked.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A bishop’s administrative role in a diocese comes from the Pope, but a bishop still has (perhaps a vague and somewhat ethereal) spiritual authority over other Catholics even if he is not an ordinary. For example: say a titular bishop is the “swing vote” at an ecumenical council in which a proposition is deadlocked.

Isn’t the Pope the swing vote, in that if there are 1000 bishops and 999 says “no” and the Pope alone says “yes”, therefore it is a yes?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Isn’t the Pope the swing vote, in that if there are 1000 bishops and 999 says “no” and the Pope alone says “yes”, therefore it is a yes?

I would say:

1. That is an extremely unlikely scenario.
2. Not the same thing. My point here is a regular bishop, not the Pope.

 

[BVMFatima]

That is a bizarre statement, as we do not usually speak of any “Latin or Roman patriarchate”.

Here is an article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia as provided on this website on the term “Roman Catholic”, which strongly prefers the rejection of the term entirely but acknowledges that it may be used to simply mean “Catholic.” The author seems unaware of the use to mean “Latin Catholic” though as you have demonstrated this had already occurred at least occasionally.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic

The Wikipedia article on the subject is incoherent, probably due to combative counter-editing, but lists the following documents as ones in which “Roman Catholic” is used in the sense of “Catholic” in Papal documents:

Divini Illius Magistri (Pius XI, 1929)
Humani generis (Pius XII, 1950)
“Common Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury His Grace Rowan Williams” (2006)
“Common Declaration: Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I” (2006)

You won’t find a huge number of formal Church documents using the term in any sense, as it is not a commonly used name except in the English-speaking world, where Anglicans pushed its use to distinguish our kind of Catholic from the Anglo-Catholics.

I would find the exact quotes in the documents above if I had time. Or rather, quite honestly, if I had not been on CAF for hours and felt the need to soon call it a day.

If you would like to continue this word-fight, may I suggest we do so by private message? So long as it remains solely a matter of the proper definition of words, it is the vapid and counterproductive kind of dispute St. Paul warned against. Also it is a little off topic. If there is a practical ecclesiological point you mean to imply by insisting on the “Latin Catholic” definition of “Roman Catholic”, then I’d invite you to make that point explicitly.

The Catholic church rejects using Roman Catholic to mean the whole Church, which is what Anglicans believed. Roman is only meant to mean the west, and the Early Church of the west was called " The Church of Rome ". So was the early Church wrong? I don’t think so. Plus, the word Christian itself was a negative term made up by pagans for the followers of the way. Yet to this day, we still use this term. So shall we not call ourselves Christians too?..

 

[twf]

But isn’t it Roman Catholic teaching that the diocese apart from the Pope is not a true diocese? Therefore the existence of every diocese is dependent on the Pope, not just the diocese itself.

the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm

It comes from a section called: “The Pope’s Power Derived Immediately From Christ; That Of The Bishops, Through The Mediation Of The Pope”

So obviously this speaks of the Pope as some kind of super bishop who is above all bishops and the only one who has the divine authority to be a bishop. Doesn’t this disprove a Eucharistic model among the Churches in the Catholic Church? The understanding here is that a bishop is only a bishop if the Pope says he is a bishop, or if he is in communion with the Pope (which by itself is contradictory to the Sacramental theology of the RC Church that ordination is permanent and a schismatic bishop is still a bishop).

Further on that page, it says, “Their jurisdiction, although fully subordinated to that of the Sovereign Pontiff…”. Doesn’t this suggest that every diocese rightfully belongs to the Pope as well as the Local Ordinary? That part of the article continues to say that each bishop has rightful claim by divine law to their local jurisdiction, but it cannot be apart from the Pope. So in short, every diocese simply has two bishops.

I haven’t read the entire document above, but that doesn’t sound right at all. I would say that it is either the private opinion of the author, or your interpretation is off (not saying that it is - like I said, I haven’t read through the entire piece). Pope St. Gregory the Great, whom the Latin Church honors as a Doctor and one of its greatest popes/theologians, argued very strongly against the notion of a “super” or “universal” bishop from whom all other bishops derive their power. It is true that the jurisdiction of bishops, at least in the Latin Church, is determined by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, but the authority and dignity intrinsic to the office comes directly from Christ.

From the Catechism:

1558 "Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. . . . In fact . . . by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative (in Eius persona agant)."37 "By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors."38

Note that consecration confers the offices of teaching and ruling - not the Pope.

1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."41

Note that each bishop is Christ’s vicar.

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."427 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.

Their authority is immediate, meaning it does come directly from Christ. This is the teaching of the Church. Yes, the use of that authority is guided by the Pope, but it does not come from him. Does this mean that each diocese has two bishops? No - the supreme authority of the Church, referenced here, is elsewhere defined as the pope AND bishops in union with him - meaning that an ecumenical council is also an exercise of the supreme authority. Even in the Orthodox Churches, the local bishop, whose authority comes directly from Christ, is still subject to the authority of ecumenical councils.

When I receive Holy Communion, I am part of Christ and Christ is part of me; however, to remain part of Christ and His Church, I must be in communion with my local bishop. The local bishop receives his authority from Christ - he is part of Christ and Christ is part of him, but for him to remain fully incorporated into Christ and His Church he must be in full communion with the bishop of Rome, who represents the visible unity of the entire Church. As I said in an earlier post, it isn’t always a matter of either / or. Catholic theology is very nuanced and often the answer to a yes or no question is both.

 

[twf]

I believe that within the Archdiocese of Milan, churches (including, of course, the people therein) are Ambrosian unless they are in the charge of a non-Ambrosian religious Order or are otherwise exempt. IOW it’s not a matter of pick-and-choose. Those parishes in Milan that use the Roman Rite are one of the two. Please keep in mind that one of the titles of the Archbishop of Milan is “Capo Rito” (“head of the rite”) and if the norm wasn’t Ambrosian in the first place, that title would make no sense. But the norm in Milan IS Ambroasian, ergo the title **does **make sense.

My mistake…I suppose, then, there is an Ambrosian Catholic Church - it just happens to be part of the larger Latin Church and not a Church sui iuris in its own right. Thanks for the correction. I suppose in the same way it could be argued that the three new Anglican Ordinariates constitute an Anglican Catholic Church, though not a Church sui iuris. Though I’m not sure if they can be considered particular churches? Members of the Ordinariate are not subject to the local Roman rite bishop, yet their Ordinaries are technically presbyters not bishops - but this is only due to the fact that all three men are married and thus ineligble for the episcopate; for all practical intents and purposes they exercise episcopal jurisdiction.

 

[IacomusIosephus]

There is a Patriarch of Braga and a Patriarch of Milan.

There is also a Patriarch of the West Indies (i.e. of the Western Hemisphere). The sede is vacant at this time. Some might say it is headed into abeyance.

My personal opinion which means is about as weighty as a luft balloon, is that an appointed patriarch here in the New World might be handy indeed.

The whole idea of national conferences of bishops (which many claim are merely regional) is towing the line a wee bit too much for my comfort. The current practices allows too much fragmentation. I believe with some justification that the empty sede places Hispanic Catholics under duress. Bear in mind that the liturgy of the West Indies is properly pre-Tridentine and some could argue possibly of the Rite of Toledo or perhaps even of Braga.

In the Diocese of Fall River (Southeastern Massachusetts) one finds from time to time holy Mass celebrated according to the Rite of Braga.

 

[malphono]

My mistake…I suppose, then, there is an Ambrosian Catholic Church - it just happens to be part of the larger Latin Church and not a Church sui iuris in its own right. Thanks for the correction.

Pleasure, but I still wouldn’t call it a “Church” per-se. It’s a territorial (or geographical) Rite within the Latin Church. Diocesan priests of Milan are all technically bi-ritual. That is, since they are ordained for service in the Archdiocese of Milan they normally celebrate according to the Ambrosian Rite, (and they can actually do so even when outside the territorial bounds of the diocese, but are not required (or even expected) to do so) but they can also celebrate according to the Roman Rite. For example, during Lent the Ambrosian Rite maintains the custom that all Fridays are aliturgical (i.e. Mass if not offered), but any diocesan priest in Milan may say Mass (in the Roman Rite) in a Roman Rite church.

Now, let’s say a diocesan priest from Milan transfers to, and is formally incardinated in, another diocese. In that case, he’s no longer part of the Archdiocese of Milan and so he loses what amounts to his faculties for the Ambrosian Rite. OTOH, if he’s visiting in, or is “on loan” to, another diocese, his faculties for the Ambrosian Rite remain intact, even though in the other diocese he would generally be using the Roman Rite. The reverse would also be true: say a priest from the Diocese of Rome was transferred to Milan. Upon incardination, he would automatically assume faculties for the Ambrosian Rite, but he would never lose his faculties for the Roman Rite. And of course any diocesan priest of Milan may concelebrate in the Roman Rite at will.

It’s similar for bishops. We can look at both Bl Ildefenso Schuster and Giovanni Battista Montini (later Paul VI), neither of whom was from Milan, as good examples. Schuster was born and raised in Rome and joined the Benedictines in Rome, so he had no connection whatsoever to the Ambrosian Rite. (Even if he had been from Milan, the fact that he was an OSB means that he would have been of the Roman Rite anyway.) Eventually he was named Archbishop of Milan at which time he adopted the Ambrosian Rite and assumed the title Capo Rito (I might add here that in that role he became a great champion of the Ambrosian Rite.) His successor (Montini) was originally from, and ordained for, the Diocese of Brescia, so he was likewise of the Roman Rite. Here again, when named to the See of Milan, he adopted the Ambrosian Rite (and here, again, he served admirably in the role of capo rito, which was certainly NOT the case with his two immediate successors). I can’t think of a case where an Archbishop of Milan was transferred to another See but in theory it would still work in reverse.

I suppose in the same way it could be argued that the three new Anglican Ordinariates constitute an Anglican Catholic Church, though not a Church sui iuris. Though I’m not sure if they can be considered particular churches? Members of the Ordinariate are not subject to the local Roman rite bishop, yet their Ordinaries are technically presbyters not bishops - but this is only due to the fact that all three men are married and thus ineligble for the episcopate; for all practical intents and purposes they exercise episcopal jurisdiction.

It seems to me that the Anglican Ordinariates are a different ball of wax, and can be seen as having the potential of being considered a “Church” within the Latin Church. I say “potential” because they would, of course, need an episcopal hierarchy in the first place and among other things, before that could happen.

 

[malphono]

There is a Patriarch of Braga and a Patriarch of Milan.

No, there is a titular Patriarch of Lisbon and a titular Patriarch of Venice. The title “Patriarch” in those cases (and there were a few others in the Latin Church, which have been suppressed) is merely an honorific and carries no authority beyond that of a normal Metropolitan.

Bear in mind that the liturgy of the West Indies is properly pre-Tridentine and some could argue possibly of the Rite of Toledo or perhaps even of Braga.

Not really. The missionaries were primarily members of Religious Orders Congregations and so their activities would have been in other than either the Mozarabic or Bragan Rites. For example, many of them were Dominicans who, of course, have their own Rite, but even so, when a diocesan clergy became established in the mission territories, the Roman Rite was used. Many others were Jesuits who have always used the Roman Rite anyway, as is the case with Franciscans, OMI, etc etc.

In the Diocese of Fall River (Southeastern Massachusetts) one finds from time to time holy Mass celebrated according to the Rite of Braga.

Also, I believe, in neighboring Rhode Island.

 

[Genesis315]

I think this might explain the relationship between particular Churches and the universal Church (see especially parts II and III):

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

 

[Genesis315]

Also, a note on jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of bishops is said to come from the Pope, since the Pope has the authority to assign jurisdiction to individual bishops or take it away and all jurisdiction is exercised at least with his tacit approval. A bishop not in communion with the head the episcopate has no authority over the faithful.

Here’s a good article explaining why this is so:
the-pope.com/fenton1.html

But this is not a delegation of the Pope’s jurisdiction–bishops are not the Pope’s vicars (cf. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum 14.) It is truly an ordinary jurisdiction that comes from Christ, but through the Pope as the center of unity of the episcopate.

Also see this article, which explores some of the issues related to the relationship between the jurisdiction of the Pope and that of other bishops:

ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/40/40.1/40.1.1.pdf