Universal Church in union w/Rome- The Catholic Church or The Roman Catholic Church?

[Diakonia]

Let’s get back to the question - and to reality …

There is no ‘official name’ for the Catholic Communion of Churches headquartered at Rome (and I defy anyone to find a document with Papal signature thereon which says differently)

• the Conciliar documents cited are not reciting a ‘Name’ - they are making reference with descriptive terminology prepended thereto
• the Catholic Encyclopedia is not authoritative now - nor was it in its day
• the article from EWTN is lost in another time

“The Catholic Church” - as used by Catholics and, commonly, by others - in other words, “in common parlance”, refers to the Church headquartered at Rome. In reality, it could be more properly termed “The Catholic Communion”, as it includes other Churches.

The specific Church within the Catholic Communion which serves its liturgical services according to the Latin Rite can, and often is, referred to as the Latin Church or the Western Church.

The (14) Eastern Catholic Churches and (8) Oriental Catholic Churches are those Churches sui iuris which utliize other than the Latin Rite. By popular usage, the terminology Oriental Catholic Church is applied to include the 3 non-Latin Churches which are neither Eastern nor Oriental (the Maronites, Chaldeans, and Malabarese, who don’t fit any of the niches).

To those Orthodox who elect to consider that all Catholics are of the Roman Catholic Church (and that is not all Orthodox, but it is a fair number), the Eastern Catholics are merely Roman Catholics who elect to serve a liturgical service in the Eastern manner, because they do not consider the Eastern Catholic Churches to rightfully exist as a separate entity from their Mother Eastern Orthodox Churches.

If you choose to fixate on and worry yourself over this, have at it. Nothing is going to change and it is not a mark of disrespect on the part of our Orthodox brethren - it is just the reality of life in the Eastern and Oriental world - a world wherein Eastern Catholics see (or should see) the ultimate goal of their Churches (as enunciated by their own hierarchs) is to be subsumed into their Mother Churches at the time of reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox into a single Communion.

As to ‘Roman’ as used elsewhere …

In the Middle East, Melkites are “Roum Catholique’ and Antiochians are 'Roum Orthodoxe” - Roman Catholics (Catholics of New Rome = Constantinople) and Roman Orthodox (Orthodox of New Rome = Constantinople)

 

[Marybeloved]

Let’s get back to the question - and to reality …

There is no ‘official name’ for the Catholic Communion of Churches headquartered at Rome (and I defy anyone to find a document with Papal signature thereon which says differently)

• the Conciliar documents cited are not reciting a ‘Name’ - they are making reference with descriptive terminology prepended thereto
• the Catholic Encyclopedia is not authoritative now - nor was it in its day
• the article from EWTN is lost in another time

“The Catholic Church” - as used by Catholics and, commonly, by others - in other words, “in common parlance”, refers to the Church headquartered at Rome. In reality, it could be more properly termed “The Catholic Communion”, as it includes other Churches.

The specific Church within the Catholic Communion which serves its liturgical services according to the Latin Rite can, and often is, referred to as the Latin Church or the Western Church.

The (14) Eastern Catholic Churches and (8) Oriental Catholic Churches are those Churches sui iuris which utliize other than the Latin Rite. By popular usage, the terminology Oriental Catholic Church is applied to include the 3 non-Latin Churches which are neither Eastern nor Oriental (the Maronites, Chaldeans, and Malabarese, who don’t fit any of the niches).

To those Orthodox who elect to consider that all Catholics are of the Roman Catholic Church (and that is not all Orthodox, but it is a fair number), the Eastern Catholics are merely Roman Catholics who elect to serve a liturgical service in the Eastern manner, because they do not consider the Eastern Catholic Churches to rightfully exist as a separate entity from their Mother Eastern Orthodox Churches.

If you choose to fixate on and worry yourself over this, have at it. Nothing is going to change and it is not a mark of disrespect on the part of our Orthodox brethren - it is just the reality of life in the Eastern and Oriental world - a world wherein Eastern Catholics see (or should see) the ultimate goal of their Churches (as enunciated by their own hierarchs) is to be subsumed into their Mother Churches at the time of reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox into a single Communion.

As to ‘Roman’ as used elsewhere …

In the Middle East, Melkites are “Roum Catholique’ and Antiochians are 'Roum Orthodoxe” - Roman Catholics (Catholics of New Rome = Constantinople) and Roman Orthodox (Orthodox of New Rome = Constantinople)

If what you say is true, then why not refer to the Eastern catholics as Orthodox in communion with the roman Church, rather than as you put it, Roman Catholics using Eastern liturgies?

And the while wtn and Catholic Encyclopedia are not authoritative Church documents, they are accurate dispensers of knowledge about the Catholic Church- Certainly, they are at least more authoritative than your own opinion here .

And I could use w/out the condescending tone especially in the paragraph in bold above- This is a discussion board, we discuss matters of interest to do with our faith and our Church- If it bothers you, you do not have to read or comment on every thread. If you chose to participate in the discussions, then by all means- Welcome!

 

[Marybeloved]

Let’s get back to the question - and to reality …

There is no ‘official name’ for the Catholic Communion of Churches headquartered at Rome (and I defy anyone to find a document with Papal signature thereon which says differently)

• the Conciliar documents cited are not reciting a ‘Name’ - they are making reference with descriptive terminology prepended thereto
• the Catholic Encyclopedia is not authoritative now - nor was it in its day
• the article from EWTN is lost in another time

“The Catholic Church” - as used by Catholics and, commonly, by others - in other words, “in common parlance”, refers to the Church headquartered at Rome. In reality, it could be more properly termed “The Catholic Communion”, as it includes other Churches.

The specific Church within the Catholic Communion which serves its liturgical services according to the Latin Rite can, and often is, referred to as the Latin Church or the Western Church.

The (14) Eastern Catholic Churches and (8) Oriental Catholic Churches are those Churches sui iuris which utliize other than the Latin Rite. By popular usage, the terminology Oriental Catholic Church is applied to include the 3 non-Latin Churches which are neither Eastern nor Oriental (the Maronites, Chaldeans, and Malabarese, who don’t fit any of the niches).

To those Orthodox who elect to consider that all Catholics are of the Roman Catholic Church (and that is not all Orthodox, but it is a fair number), the Eastern Catholics are merely Roman Catholics who elect to serve a liturgical service in the Eastern manner, because they do not consider the Eastern Catholic Churches to rightfully exist as a separate entity from their Mother Eastern Orthodox Churches.

If you choose to fixate on and worry yourself over this, have at it. Nothing is going to change and it is not a mark of disrespect on the part of our Orthodox brethren - it is just the reality of life in the Eastern and Oriental world - a world wherein Eastern Catholics see (or should see) the ultimate goal of their Churches (as enunciated by their own hierarchs) is to be subsumed into their Mother Churches at the time of reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox into a single Communion.

As to ‘Roman’ as used elsewhere …

In the Middle East, Melkites are “Roum Catholique’ and Antiochians are 'Roum Orthodoxe” - Roman Catholics (Catholics of New Rome = Constantinople) and Roman Orthodox (Orthodox of New Rome = Constantinople)

If what you say is true, then why not refer to the Eastern catholics as Orthodox in communion with the roman Church, rather than as you put it, Roman Catholics using Eastern liturgies?

And the while EWTN and the Catholic Encyclopedia are not authoritative Church documents, they are accurate dispensers of knowledge about the Catholic Church and faith- Certainly, they are at least more authoritative than your own opinion here .

And I could use w/out the condescending tone especially in the paragraph in bold above- This is a discussion board, we discuss matters of interest to do with our faith and our Church- If it bothers you, you do not have to read or comment on every thread. If you chose to participate in the discussions, then by all means- Welcome!

 

[Marybeloved]

Let’s get back to the question - and to reality …

There is no ‘official name’ for the Catholic Communion of Churches headquartered at Rome (and I defy anyone to find a document with Papal signature thereon which says differently)

• the Conciliar documents cited are not reciting a ‘Name’ - they are making reference with descriptive terminology prepended thereto
• the Catholic Encyclopedia is not authoritative now - nor was it in its day
• the article from EWTN is lost in another time

“The Catholic Church” - as used by Catholics and, commonly, by others - in other words, “in common parlance”, refers to the Church headquartered at Rome. In reality, it could be more properly termed “The Catholic Communion”, as it includes other Churches.

The specific Church within the Catholic Communion which serves its liturgical services according to the Latin Rite can, and often is, referred to as the Latin Church or the Western Church.

The (14) Eastern Catholic Churches and (8) Oriental Catholic Churches are those Churches sui iuris which utliize other than the Latin Rite. By popular usage, the terminology Oriental Catholic Church is applied to include the 3 non-Latin Churches which are neither Eastern nor Oriental (the Maronites, Chaldeans, and Malabarese, who don’t fit any of the niches).

To those Orthodox who elect to consider that all Catholics are of the Roman Catholic Church (and that is not all Orthodox, but it is a fair number), the Eastern Catholics are merely Roman Catholics who elect to serve a liturgical service in the Eastern manner, because they do not consider the Eastern Catholic Churches to rightfully exist as a separate entity from their Mother Eastern Orthodox Churches.

If you choose to fixate on and worry yourself over this, have at it. Nothing is going to change and it is not a mark of disrespect on the part of our Orthodox brethren - it is just the reality of life in the Eastern and Oriental world - a world wherein Eastern Catholics see (or should see) the ultimate goal of their Churches (as enunciated by their own hierarchs) is to be subsumed into their Mother Churches at the time of reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox into a single Communion.

As to ‘Roman’ as used elsewhere …

In the Middle East, Melkites are “Roum Catholique’ and Antiochians are 'Roum Orthodoxe” - Roman Catholics (Catholics of New Rome = Constantinople) and Roman Orthodox (Orthodox of New Rome = Constantinople)

If what you say is true, that Eastern Catholics are not regarded as separate entities, then why not refer to the Eastern catholics as Orthodox in communion with the Roman Church, or even simply Eastern Christians in communion with Rome, rather than as you put it, Roman Catholics using Eastern liturgies?

And while Ewtn and the Catholic Encyclopedia are not authoritative Church documents, they are accurate dispensers of knowledge about the Catholic Church and faith- Certainly, they are at least more authoritative than your own opinion here .

And I could use w/out the condescending tone especially in the paragraph in bold above- This is a discussion board, we discuss matters of interest to do with our faith and our Church- If it bothers you, you do not have to read or comment on every thread. If you chose to participate in the discussions, then by all means- Welcome!

 

[5Loaves]

The specific Church within the Catholic Communion which serves its liturgical services according to the Latin Rite can, and often is, referred to as the Latin Church or the Western Church.

The Latin Church typically uses the Roman Rite in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (either in English or a combination of English and Latin), and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, AKA the Tridentine Mass, (largely in Latin). There are other liturgical rites of the Latin Church less widely celebrated, such as the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite, but there is no Latin Rite.

The Latin Church does indeed refer to itself as the Latin Church. Can. 1 of the Codex Iuris Canonici Code of Canon Law for the Church:

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

 

[jmj1984]

Why can’t “mother and mistress of all the churches” mean simply the church upon which all the other churches are built as their foundation rock and therefore depend on for their catholicity? This would seem to distinguish it as the church built by the Lord himself as he promised to St. Peter. Besides, the phrase “of all the churches” clearly shows it is one distinguished church among many churches but not itself the sum of all the churches.

Even if we assume that what you say is true that still gives it objective superiority as other churches rely on it for catholicity. Also I merely states that the Universal Church was roman because the Roman Pontiff is its head (on earth) and its foundation. Likewise we are all ‘Roman’ Catholics in that we accept the Roman Pontiffs universal and supreme authority and are all humbly submissive to him.

 

[LakewoodPlumbin]

We believe your work, and blog, are terrific.
Westminster Plumbing
Plumbing Lakewood CO
plumbing westminster
plumbing golden co

 

[jmj1984]

It should be note that one should draw a distinction between ‘Latin Church’ and ‘Roman Church’, the Latin Church is that part of the church which uses latin liturgies, that is liturgies and sacraments said primarily in latin or for whom the ‘source text’ of the liturgy and sacraments is in Latin. The Roman Catholic Church is that Church which has the Roman pontiff as its head and recognises this as such, as all catholics accept the Pope as head of The Church (in earth) both as a matter of faith and as matter of practice for example in the liturgy itself and other public prayers and liturgical services. It therefore follows that all catholics can legitmately be called Roman Catholics. This is not synonomous with Latin Catholic as evidently not all Catholics are Latin Catholics.

I am well aware that many Eastern Catholics may not like the term Roman Catholic but as The Church has not come up with a better way to describe its uniquely Roman Nature and the Roman Nature of its head (on earth) I cannot see that there is any other way to describe the facts.

 

[Marybeloved]

Even if we assume that what you say is true that still gives it objective superiority as other churches rely on it for catholicity. Also I merely states that the Universal Church was roman because the Roman Pontiff is its head (on earth) and its foundation. Likewise we are all ‘Roman’ Catholics in that we accept the Roman Pontiffs universal and supreme authority and are all humbly submissive to him.

This is from the article I cited earlier:

Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed.

 

[jmj1984]

This is from the article I cited earlier:

I’m afraid that in a hierarchy of authorities, statements from infallible councils are higher up than an article and in my original post I quoted several infallible councils which use the term.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If what you say is true, that Eastern Catholics are not regarded as separate entities, then why not refer to the Eastern catholics as Orthodox in communion with the Roman Church, or even simply Eastern Christians in communion with Rome, rather than as you put it, Roman Catholics using Eastern liturgies?

And while Ewtn and the Catholic Encyclopedia are not authoritative Church documents, they are accurate dispensers of knowledge about the Catholic Church and faith- Certainly, they are at least more authoritative than your own opinion here .

And I could use w/out the condescending tone especially in the paragraph in bold above- This is a discussion board, we discuss matters of interest to do with our faith and our Church- If it bothers you, you do not have to read or comment on every thread. If you chose to participate in the discussions, then by all means- Welcome!

We’re not Roman Catholics with Eastern Liturgies. We live the praxis of the East, which goes beyond just the Liturgy.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The fact that the Catholic Church IS the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church does however mean that the Orthodox churches are not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, that is what we as Catholics profess. Orthodox may individually be part of the body of Christ, but until they submit to the authority of the Pope they cannot be as a body part of The Catholic Church, that is the True Church of Christ.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It does not mean they are not.

It does not make one a better Catholic by rejecting any recognition of other churches. The Catholic Church does recognise the Orthodox churches as churches. That is important both in ecclesiology and theology. They are also recognised as having valid Apostolic succesion and valid sacraments.

If the Catholic Church is the true Church, then yes it does mean that they are not the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Christ established a Church, not multiple Churches. Not to say that those with valid Apostolic Succession and Sacraments aren’t considered Churches. They just aren’t the TRUE Church.

I don’t disagree with any of the second paragraph.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m afraid that in a hierarchy of authorities, statements from infallible councils are higher up than an article and in my original post I quoted several infallible councils which use the term.

Yes, but you merely established that the Roman Church is central and indispensable (obviously- being the seat of Peter the Rock) and higher than all the Churches- That the universal Church is the Roman Catholic Church and not the Catholic Church, is, however just your interpretation of the documents!

I cited the article (which is cited by CAF in answer to this question) because it itself is based on those authoritative Council documents and draws a very different conclusion from you, and one that agrees with the Catholic encyclopedia. So if they’re all saying that the Church calls herself The Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church, forgive me if I follow their inference of the facts and not your own interpretation.

 

[Marybeloved]

Even if we assume that what you say is true that still gives it objective superiority as other churches rely on it for catholicity. Also I merely states that the Universal Church was roman because the Roman Pontiff is its head (on earth) and its foundation. Likewise we are all ‘Roman’ Catholics in that we accept the Roman Pontiffs universal and supreme authority and are all humbly submissive to him.

It’s not true what you say though- The Roman Church is superior because Peter is superior- But Peter in not himself the entire Church, only Christ is!- Peter is her visible head on Earth, your inference contradicts what others understand about the Council documents and the Catholic faith in general. “Roman” identifies the seat of Peter, the foundation chosen by Christ, and therefore a mark of the Church he (Christ) built, it does not follow that the universal Church is anything other than the Catholic Church- And “the Catholic Church” is what the Church calls herself.

 

[runningdude]

I disagree. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox are fully aware that Eastern Catholics do not identify themselves as Roman Catholics. You may find Greek Catholic, Melkite, etc., but you will not find “Roman”. Accordingly, those who refer to Eastern Catholics as Roman Catholics, are very likely making a choice to deny the self-identification of Eastern Catholics and to impose an alien identity upon them. IMO this usage is akin to the usage of the U word, which is acknowledged to be inherently “confrontational and uncharitable” (cf Important Forum Information).

While the Orthodox may understand that the Eastern Catholics don’t self-identify as Roman, the Orthodox would not consider them “orthodox”, as their communion with Rome precludes communion with, in the Orthodox mind, the “true” Catholic Church.

They are basically being honest about their views calling them “Roman” Catholics, even if its not particularly polite.

 

[twf]

We must remember that theologically, every diocese/eparchy under a local bishop is in itself a particular church. As St. Ignatius said “Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” With that in mind, I don’t believe these references to the “Holy Roman Church” refer to the Catholic Church as a whole NOR to the Latin Church… I believe they refer to the Diocese of Rome. The Diocese of Rome holds primacy among the churches and always has… that’s all these documents are saying. All those local churches that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church (that is, the Catholic Church in the city of Rome…the Diocese of Rome) are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There may be a few cases in which Church authorities have, for historical reasons, referred to the entire Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church”, but I do not believe that this has been the norm. I am a member of the Church in Vancouver - properly, the Archdiocese of Vancouver, which as a particular church of the larger Latin Church, is in communion with the Roman Church… that is the Diocese of Rome.

 

[dvdjs]

While the Orthodox may understand that the Eastern Catholics don’t self-identify as Roman, the Orthodox would not consider them “orthodox”, as their communion with Rome precludes communion with, in the Orthodox mind, the “true” Catholic Church.

They are basically being honest about their views calling them “Roman” Catholics, even if its not particularly polite.

I have no complaint that Orthodox would not use the term “orthodox” in referring to Eastern Catholics. But that doesn’t make them “Roman”, nor excuse the practice of negating identity.

 

[Vico]

We must remember that theologically, every diocese/eparchy under a local bishop is in itself a particular church. As St. Ignatius said “Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” With that in mind, I don’t believe these references to the “Holy Roman Church” refer to the Catholic Church as a whole NOR to the Latin Church… I believe they refer to the Diocese of Rome. The Diocese of Rome holds primacy among the churches and always has… that’s all these documents are saying. All those local churches that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church (that is, the Catholic Church in the city of Rome…the Diocese of Rome) are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There may be a few cases in which Church authorities have, for historical reasons, referred to the entire Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church”, but I do not believe that this has been the norm. I am a member of the Church in Vancouver - properly, the Archdiocese of Vancouver, which as a particular church of the larger Latin Church, is in communion with the Roman Church… that is the Diocese of Rome.

Than you for explaining this important definition. From the glossary on www.vatican.va:

Diocese:a particular Church entrusted to the responsibility of a bishop usually established by territory within the Catholic Church.

vatican.va/resources/resources_glossary-terms_en.html

 

[Marybeloved]

While the Orthodox may understand that the Eastern Catholics don’t self-identify as Roman, the Orthodox would not consider them “orthodox”, as their communion with Rome precludes communion with, in the Orthodox mind, the “true” Catholic Church.

They are basically being honest about their views calling them “Roman” Catholics, even if its not particularly polite.

I really have a hard time understanding this particular manner of thinking! It basically says "Hey, I need to accurately represent my own faith by misrepresenting yours- Don’t mind, though, It’s not personal" It’s ridiculous!!

Orthodox are free to call themselves Catholics, even the true Catholic Church and claim that the Catholic Church is not the true Catholic Church of the creed (they do)- many schismatic groups in the West claim for themselves the name “Catholic” after all and accuse the Catholic Church of being anti-Christ- What they’re not free to do is forcefully plant a name on Catholics and other groups that those groups reject and find alien! It’s really not that complicated! We ourselves believe that we are perfectly orthodox in all the matters about which others disagree with us, but we don’t need to label the Orthodox or anyone else with our own titles to indicate that they are not perfectly Orthodox in our understanding of the word! That’s insulting- Call yourself whatever you want, make whatever claims you feel express your faith, **do not impose names on groups that are not you! **

It’s like Muslims insisting on labeling and categorizing Christianity polytheistic in inter-faith dialogues with Christians (on Christian forums!), because “they’re just being honest” about what they think about Christianity! They can claim this about us in discussions/debates, they cannot give us a label to which we are supposed to answer, and that does not conform to the way we call and label ourselves! It’s also like how some Christians insist on calling Muslims “Mahometans” or Islam “Mohammadenaism” regardless of the fact that this an external label that is offensive to the group being described and also completely unnecessary. It shows bad faith in dialogue:shrug: