What are the different types of catholic?

[meridith]

Okay, guys (girls), as I am the original OP here, needing baby steps please, this has seemed to go way off topic, or maybe it’s my imagination. I would apprciate staying on topic, and not getting into the politics. Please bear with with me. It seems there are other forums some of this could be taken to, what does some of the last few Popes have to do with my opening post? ( Remember, I need baby steps here, small, small baby steps To me, this has to do with true faith, the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit only.
Thank You

 

[Cluny]

You make a very interesting argument, that falls just short of “the fullness of TRUTH” of which I speak as residing only in the RCC.

Not true.

The Eastern Catholic churches are as much Catholic as the Roman Church is.

The fullness of truth resides in THEM as well.

What you’re saying goes against what popes have explicitly said.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Meridith,

Okay, guys (girls), as I am the original OP here, needing baby steps please, this has seemed to go way off topic, or maybe it’s my imagination. I would apprciate staying on topic, and not getting into the politics. Please bear with with me. It seems there are other forums some of this could be taken to, what does some of the last few Popes have to do with my opening post? ( Remember, I need baby steps here, small, small baby steps To me, this has to do with true faith, the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit only.
Thank You

What we have been speaking of in the past several posts seems to have relevance for your question. You asked about the different kinds of Catholics, yet someone has come and stated that ONLY Latin Catholics are FULLY Catholics. A Catholic is identified by a COMMON FAITH, including, but not limited to, their admission of and adherence to communion with the bishop of Rome. This common Faith is expressed differently among the several Catholic Churches, but it is the SAME FAITH nevertheless. This was the way of it in the early Church, and this is the way of it now in the Catholic Church, and only the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[pickguard1]

Dear sister Meridith,

What we have been speaking of in the past several posts seems to have relevance for your question. You asked about the different kinds of Catholics, yet someone has come and stated that ONLY Latin Catholics are FULLY Catholics. A Catholic is identified by a COMMON FAITH, including, but not limited to, their admission of and adherence to communion with the bishop of Rome. This common Faith is expressed differently among the several Catholic Churches, but it is the SAME FAITH nevertheless. This was the way of it in the early Church, and this is the way of it now in the Catholic Church, and only the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, OP, unfortunately there had to be a discussion here to clarify what appears to be a confusion by the poster in question of the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. The Eastern Orthodox are NOT in union with Rome, while the Eastern Catholics ARE. They can’t all be lumped together, simply because they’re Eastern. There are some other important doctrines that the Eastern Orthodox do not agree with the Catholic Church on, such as the nature of Original Sin, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, (possibly her Assumption? IDK) the addition of the word “Filioque” into the Nicene Creed, and Papal Infallibility and Papal Authority (which is the main source of non-unity with the pope.) So, long story short - (not really ) There is ONE Catholic Church, in which there are many different rites (Roman, Melkite, Copt, Byzantine, Ruthenian etc. (the lists have been posted) all of which share the same faith, but have different liturgical rites and traditions.

 

[Cluny]

There is ONE Catholic Church, in which there are many different rites (Roman, Melkite, Copt, Byzantine, Ruthenian etc.

Actually, there only a half-dozen or so rites, or liturgical families.

There are some 23 sui juris Churches in the Catholic Church.

 

[pickguard1]

Actually, there only a half-dozen or so rites, or liturgical families.

There are some 23 sui juris Churches in the Catholic Church.

OK, I’m not sure what “sui juris” means,Latin for “own jurisdiction?” please distinguish for me.

Thanks!

 

[Madaglan]

Which is against the teaching of Rome and her Magesterium as well. As Bishop Sheen of blessed memory used to say, the Church is not fully “Catholic” without the Eastern Churches.

I’m just finishing up Fulton Sheen’s book Peace of Soul, and it’s interesting how he brings up several times deification/divinization.

 

[Aramis]

OK, I’m not sure what “sui juris” means,Latin for “own jurisdiction?” please distinguish for me.

Thanks!

Sui-juris is self-governing.

Here’s a breakdown by rite (borrowed from gcatholic.com/dioceses/rites.htm)
gcatholic.com/dioceses/rites.htm)

Rite | Sui iuris Church
Roman or Latin Rite | Roman Church
Alexandrian Rite | Coptic Church, Ethiopic Church
Antiochian Rite | Maronite Church,Syro-Malankar Church
Armenian Rite | Armenian Church
Chaldean or Syro-Oriental Rite | Chaldean Church, Syro-Malabar Church
Constantinian or Byzantine Rite | Albanese Church, Byzantine Church of the Križevci Eparchy, Belarussian Church, Bulgarian Church, Greek Church, Greek-Melkite Church, Hungarian Church, Italo-Albanese Church, Macedonian Church, Romanian Church, Russian Church, Ruthenian Church, Slovak Church, Ukrainian Church

One should note that the Coptic and Ethiopian churches are distinct subrites, and the Eritrean is sometimes considered a third distinct subrite, but it is part of the Ethiopian Church.
There are 3 distinct byzantine Sub-rites: Greek-, Slavo-, and Syro-Byzantine (Melkites).
There are at least 8 distinct Roman sub-rites: Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dalmatian, Carmelite, Carthusian, Dominican; It can be argued the OF/EF distinction makes 9; none of them are, at present, Sui Iuris churches.

One should also note that the Georgian Church (which is from Turkey, not Georgia) is nearly extinct, and not listed as a Church Sui Iuris on GCatholic nor on the roman census.

 

[pickguard1]

Thanks for the info Aramis!

 

[Cluny]

There are at least 8 distinct Roman sub-rites: Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dalmatian, Carmelite, Carthusian, Dominican; It can be argued the OF/EF distinction makes 9; none of them are, at present, Sui Iuris churches.

While the Ambrosian is definitely an Italian rite, it’s difficult to tell which part is Roman (either borrowed or imposed), which is general Italian, and which is distinctly Milanese.

The Canon is basically the Roman Canon, but with some differences in text, especially the final Doxology.

While the Mozarabic rite is practiced within the roman sui juris church, it is quite distinct from the Roman Rite. Among other things, the canon varies practically every day.

I don’t know about the Bragan or Portugese rite.

By Dalmatian rite, do you mean the Roman Rite in Slavonic that was celebrated for centuries before Vatican II that was celebrated in certain dioceses along the Adriatic. Sometimes this is called the Glagolithic rite.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Two questions:

(1) Should the Anglo-Catholics (the ones in communion with Rome) be considered a distinctive branch of the Roman/Latin Rite?

(2) Why aren’t the Melkites part of the Antiochian Rite? Are they purely Byzantine, or a mixture? I mean, didn’t the Melkite Church originate from Antioch?

Blessings

Sui-juris is self-governing.

Here’s a breakdown by rite (borrowed from gcatholic.com/dioceses/rites.htm)
gcatholic.com/dioceses/rites.htm)

Rite | Sui iuris Church
Roman or Latin Rite | Roman Church
Alexandrian Rite | Coptic Church, Ethiopic Church
Antiochian Rite | Maronite Church,Syro-Malankar Church
Armenian Rite | Armenian Church
Chaldean or Syro-Oriental Rite | Chaldean Church, Syro-Malabar Church
Constantinian or Byzantine Rite | Albanese Church, Byzantine Church of the Križevci Eparchy, Belarussian Church, Bulgarian Church, Greek Church, Greek-Melkite Church, Hungarian Church, Italo-Albanese Church, Macedonian Church, Romanian Church, Russian Church, Ruthenian Church, Slovak Church, Ukrainian Church

One should note that the Coptic and Ethiopian churches are distinct subrites, and the Eritrean is sometimes considered a third distinct subrite, but it is part of the Ethiopian Church.
There are 3 distinct byzantine Sub-rites: Greek-, Slavo-, and Syro-Byzantine (Melkites).
There are at least 8 distinct Roman sub-rites: Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dalmatian, Carmelite, Carthusian, Dominican; It can be argued the OF/EF distinction makes 9; none of them are, at present, Sui Iuris churches.

One should also note that the Georgian Church (which is from Turkey, not Georgia) is nearly extinct, and not listed as a Church Sui Iuris on GCatholic nor on the roman census.

 

[Ghosty]

(2) Why aren’t the Melkites part of the Antiochian Rite? Are they purely Byzantine, or a mixture? I mean, didn’t the Melkite Church originate from Antioch?

The Melkite Church was the Chalcedonian faction of the Antiochian Church, and during the second millenium the Byzantine/Constinopolitan Rite was forced upon the Melkite Church. It is my understanding that there are some minor Antiochian/Syriac holdovers that remain, though I don’t know enough about Liturgical matters to say for certain.

So while the Melkite Church is definitely an Antiochian Church, its Rite and tradition, like that of its sister Church the Antiochian Orthodox Church, is that of Constantinople.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Aramis,

Two questions:

(1) Should the Anglo-Catholics (the ones in communion with Rome) be considered a distinctive branch of the Roman/Latin Rite?

(2) Why aren’t the Melkites part of the Antiochian Rite? Are they purely Byzantine, or a mixture? I mean, didn’t the Melkite Church originate from Antioch?

Blessings

The Roman Rite includes 8+ missals; the Anglican Use Missal is generally of the Roman Rite and Sub-rite (being neither Gallican nor Mozarabic); it differs in the Anaphora, but is essentially Roman in character.

As an interesting aside, the Traditional Anglican Communion has requested admission as a church sui iuris; if admitted as such, they would become the first western sui iuris church other than the Roman… and would bring yet another missal in. They are clearly Roman Rite, however, and the missal they currently use is the ancestor of the missal in use in the Anglican Use parishes.

As Ghosty said, the Melkites are a byzantine church; they are the one Syro-Byzantine church, being a sub-rite (shared with the Antiochian Orthodox) and a Church Sui-Iuris. The other two sub-rites of the Byzantine, the Greeko-Byzantines and the Slavo-Byzantines, each comprise several churches.

The Alexandrian Rite can be argued to be 3 subrites in two Churches: The Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean; more often the Ethiopian and Eritrean are considered a single subrite, and are part of the Ethiopian Church.

 

[PJM]

Dear Pat,

I think you are confusing the Othodox Churches (who were separated from Rome with the Schism and various schism within their own ecclesial communities afterwards), and those communities of various rites that ARE unitied with Rome. It’s easy to get them confused. I was confused and completely unaware that there were Catholics who have different Litugies until somewhat recently. Your understanding of “ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH” interjects your personal opinion. The ROMAN Catholic Church has NEVER claimed to posess the only valid form of liturgy. Frankly, I don’t quite understand your argument that the RCC alone has the fullness of faith. It is the Catholic Church (not Roman) that posesses this.
All members of the Catholic Church (which include Romans, Maronites, Ruthenians, Byzantine Catholics, etc.) are part of the ONE TRUE CHURCH. They all acknowledge the Pope in Rome as the head of the Church. What is your argument?

peace,
Will

Greetings,

I was not aware of the fractions as you describe them.

So which church’s are in Schism? And why?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[pickguard1]

Greetings,

I was not aware of the fractions as you describe them.

So which church’s are in Schism? And why?

Love and prayers,
Pat

Whew! That’s a short question with a very long answer I am not a master in this area, so maybe some of our Eastern Catholic or Orthodox brethren can help out here. Basically, the Orthodox (capital “O”) churches (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and lots of other national Orthodox churches) are in schism from Rome, formally after the 15th century Councils of Florence and Lyons (correct me someone if I’m wrong). The main issues were the doctrines on Papal Authority (rather than a “first in honor among equals” position), the addition of the “Filoque” into the creed, and the doctrines of Original Sin, and later as a result, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Also, rejection of the dogmatization of papal infallibility would stem from the first argument against the Supreme Authority of the Pope. All of these things could take up pages and pages of discussion and are probably dealt with pretty well in other threads.

The Eastern Catholics are those eastern churches who don’t dispute any doctines of the Church, but still retain their own ancient liturgies, customs, and calendars. Some were previously in schism with the Orthodox but then returned to union later, others were never in schism. Help anyone, any additions/corrections?

Peace,
Will

 

[PJM]

=meridith;5190311]Okay, guys (girls), as I am the original OP here, needing baby steps please, this has seemed to go way off topic, or maybe it’s my imagination. I would apprciate staying on topic, and not getting into the politics. Please bear with with me. It seems there are other forums some of this could be taken to, what does some of the last few Popes have to do with my opening post? ( Remember, I need baby steps here, small, small baby steps To me, this has to do with true faith, the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit only.
Thank You

Their are:

Informed and practicing Catholics

Informed and non-practicing Catholics

Informed and “practicing” as THEY WISH Catholics (ommitting or ignoring Magistrium and Church teachings at will).

Uninformed and “practicing Catholics”

Uninformed and non-practicing Catholics

“Catholics” in “name only” neither informed nor practicing.

Catholics outside of the Roman Tradition, who too accept and believe in the Primacy of Peter and all that the RC teaches.

Catholic’s that are in Schism and practice the Valid Seven Sacraments, but do not accept one or more of the RCC Dogma’s and or Doctrines. Often not accepting Papal primacy, or our teachings on the Nature of the Holy Spirit.

Love and prayer’s

Pat

These too have practicing and non-practicing and informed and uninformed elements.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Would the Pope have the authority to resurrect the Sarum rite for Anglicans?

 

[Aramis]

Would the Pope have the authority to resurrect the Sarum rite for Anglicans?

Yes. It possessed a valid consecration, and is a valid (but currently suppressed) Rite.

It’s not likely, tho’… Knott’s is more likely, with a minor change or two to the anaphora. But then again, Knott’s is pretty much a TLM in English with the saint’s commemorations reduced.

 

[pickguard1]

Yes. It possessed a valid consecration, and is a valid (but currently suppressed) Rite.

It’s not likely, tho’… Knott’s is more likely, with a minor change or two to the anaphora. But then again, Knott’s is pretty much a TLM in English with the saint’s commemorations reduced.

Where do you get all your great info about the various liturgies? I’ve never heard of 99% of them, and it would be a great thing to look into, but I don’t know where to start.

Thanks,
Will

 

[Aramis]

Where do you get all your great info about the various liturgies? I’ve never heard of 99% of them, and it would be a great thing to look into, but I don’t know where to start.

Thanks,
Will

Many of them are online in various formats. Many are described in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Orthodox Wiki describes most of the byzantine and coptic liturgies. Patriarchal websites for many eastern churches include liturgy texts for study. Some website out there had the various Roman Church latin masses for comparison, including Trent, Dominican, Ambrosian, and Carmelite.

It helps also that I’ve experienced the DLs of St John, St. Basil, St. Mark, and St. Gregory (presanctified), and the Roman OF and the Dominican Latin masses. I’ve seen online the Ambrosian and EF masses, and the Maronite “mass”, and via a Chaldean Chatechism, seen parts of the Chaldean “mass.” (Mass in quotes because the appropriate term, Qorbono/Qurbana is often substituted with mass, even tho the term is not technically fitting.)

Plus, I grew up in a clerical home (Dad’s a Deacon in the Roman Church Archdiocese of Anchorage), hung out with Dominicans with a penchant for theology (Fr. John Fearon, Fr. Anthony Patalano…) and church history (Fr. John Fearon), and got to spend quality time just chatting with Archbishop Francis Hurley.

Mom spent time in a convent, too. Her mom and her stepdad (he adopted her when he married my grandmother; mom was 4) were practicing presbyterians; Granddaddy is no longer church going, having fallen to the heresy of Edgar Casey followers.

Plus, WRT the protestant missals, in my less orthodox days, I attended a very catholic-like lutheran parish (they had voted to become a catholic parish the moment they could do so and keep the LCW… which again is very much like the trent liturgy). I’ve also had friends who were Episcopalian… and the high church is very much anglo-catholic.

My inlaws are lutherans (ELCA - very protestant lutheranism), and my wife’s stepdad is a methodist minister turned practical lutheran gone fallow… “poinsettias and palms” kind of lutheran.

Read, read, and read some more. LOADS of good stuff on the net. Time escapes, often.