What are the different types of catholic?

[BabaMary]

If you know the history of the Catholic Church, you know that the Latin Rite was not one of the first, only able to fully form once the West became Christianized.

I am reminded of a Liturgy offered by our Ukrainian Catholic priest at a local Roman rite church in celebration of the millennium of Christianity (which was only Catholicism at that point in time) in Ukraine. This Liturgy was entirely in English, so that others who did not know Ukrainian could understand the prayers and hymns. After the Liturgy, while meeting and talking to some Latin rite Catholics who had been there, one lady asked the priest “do you believe in the Pope”? As our priest answered, “Three times, we prayed for the Pope during the Liturgy.” I guess if you don’t listen, you can’t hear.

Does the poster feel St. John Chrystosom was not Catholic? Or St. Basil the Great? Or St. Nicholas? Their traditional churches were all of the Eastern rites. In the Ukrainian Catholic Church (as well as most Byzantine Catholic churches), we follow the Liturgy of St. John Chrystosom, or on major holidays, that of St. Basil. We recite the Nicean Creed, we receive the same seven sacraments (although we might call them by different names, ex. Holy Oil or Holy Anointing instead of Extreme Unction), we truly believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Our Sign of the Cross is more ancient, using the first three fingers of the right hand held together (representing the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Three Persons in One God), the two remaining fingers remind us of the Second Person, Jesus, who is both divine and human. Some practices such as the Rosary are not really traditions of our area of the world (other prayer beads that are older in tradition might be used), although many people do pray the Rosary as a private devotion or in groups (but we never would pray the Rosary during the celebration of the Liturgy! that strikes me as either ignoring the Liturgy which is to be celebrated as a group, or trying to multi-task, rather than concentrate on the Sacrifice). Our use of terms might vary, but you really can’t say Liturgy (“The Word”) is a worse term than Mass (what does that stand for?).

One difference in the Eastern Churches may be that change is rarely as swift as in the Roman rite. Theologians have told me that the history of the Roman Empire led to the tradition that changes from above must be made immediately. In the Eastern Church, the hierarchy will discuss changes, and bring them back to the various individual churches… if it is a change the Holy Spirit wills, it will happen, even if it takes years for all to accept.

The icons of the Eastern Churches are older in tradition than the realistic paintings or statues of the West; it is believed the oldest image of Christ (in the icon tradition of painting) was “written” by St. Luke. Icons don’t follow realistic imagery, because their symbolism is what is important: eyes are large (windows to the soul), foreheads are high (sign of wisdom), mouths are small (our words are not as important as God’s), when Mary is portrayed with Jesus she invariably is pointing with her hand to "show us the way (i.e., Jesus). There is so much in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church that is deeply meaningful, symbolic and totally, totally Catholic. If you for some reason believe these Eastern rites do not see the Pope “first” among the bishops, you are seriously wrong. That there are different traditions, different words/terms used, even different services, only shows the richness and fullness of the whole Catholic Church. Even in a family, everyone is not the same, but we all do follow the same faith, believe the same Creed. Please find someone who is knowledgeable or a good text that might inform you of the Eastern CATHOLIC churches of your brothers and sisters. You will find much that might surprise you in a very positive way - I know several Roman rite families who have joined our parish because they appreciated the richness and totally traditional following of Christ’s Church.

And, yes, please don’t confuse your Eastern Catholic “family” with those who (purposefully?) adopt titles for their version of church that include “Catholic” even though they clearly do not follow that faith. (Would that be any different than a country deciding to use “America” or “Canada” or some other country’s name in their own country’s title, unless there is a definite connection?)

 

[pickguard1]

Does the poster feel St. John Chrystosom was not Catholic? Or St. Basil the Great? Or St. Nicholas?

Which poster are you referring to? I think the original poster was inquiring about the various churches in Catholicism, and, along with others in this thread, you have given some beautiful information regarding the richness of the Church throughout the WHOLE world. Thanks for that.

I have recently begun to wonder why so much of this knowledge has been seemingly hidden (at least for me) from the Latin Church. Even knowledge about different liturgis WITHIN the Latin Church, let alone liturgies of the various eastern Catholic churches. I have no knowledge about how catechism and church history were taught prior to Vatican II, but I can say with surety that I personally never received or was taught any information that led me to believe anything besides the Roman Catholic Church existed, or could even be called Catholic. I went to a Catholic School for 8 years, served as an altar boy, was very involved in parish life, so in that sense I don’t feel I necessarily missed out on the fundamentals of the faith (although looking back some of the catechesis was less than complete). However, I do feel kind of robbed of my heritage, since being Catholic is to me (now at least) so much more than being Roman Catholic - although that is what I am, and as far as I can tell will continue to be.

It’s like learning about the American Revolution without learning about the colonization of America and British rule. Yes, you can get the picture, but it’s only part of it.

 

[Aramis]

Pickguard:

I have recently begun to wonder why so much of this knowledge has been seemingly hidden (at least for me) from the Latin Church. Even knowledge about different liturgis WITHIN the Latin Church, let alone liturgies of the various eastern Catholic churches. I have no knowledge about how catechism and church history were taught prior to Vatican II, but I can say with surety that I personally never received or was taught any information that led me to believe anything besides the Roman Catholic Church existed, or could even be called Catholic. I went to a Catholic School for 8 years, served as an altar boy, was very involved in parish life, so in that sense I don’t feel I necessarily missed out on the fundamentals of the faith (although looking back some of the catechesis was less than complete). However, I do feel kind of robbed of my heritage, since being Catholic is to me (now at least) so much more than being Roman Catholic - although that is what I am, and as far as I can tell will continue to be.

Until vatican II abrogated it, the 3rd Plenary Baltimore Council’s (hereafter 3PBC) ruling that only their catechism could be used in the the United States; theirs was the one they were commissioning, which came to be known as the Baltimore Catechism (hereafter, BC).

It was specific to the Roman Church and Roman Rite (excluding even the other approved post-trent Western rites even by mention: Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Ambrosian, and Dalmation). I’ve met many Byzantines who have confused views because the liturgy didn’t match the Baltimore Catechism, but that was the only allowed catechism in the US, by the USCCB upholding 3PBC. And the Popes didn’t clarify that much until the era of Vatican II.

It became MUCH more clear in 1986, with the instruction to begin working on the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (commonly CCC), and with the promulgation of the Codex Canonicus Ecclesiam Orientalis (commonly CCEO). The CCC wasn’t released until later, and the codex for it during Pope Benedict’s reign, and we are assured that it is sound and binding upon all christians by it’s promulgation. (It’s promulgated as doctrine, not as dogma.)

Further, several of the Eastern Churches are working on catechisms for their particular churches. Not that these supersede the CCC; they augment them.

That most US, some Canadian, and not a few UK catholics grew up with the BC as the sole English Catechism for them to learn the faith, it is no wonder they have little clue as to the East; the BC makes almost no references to the East, and doesn’t acknowledge the East as having Catholics. When it was written, the ECC’s were in fact still under prohibition by the 1st Plenary Council of Baltimore, for it banned all but the Roman Missal within the dioceses of the United States. Pope Pius IX overrode that prohibition, but it was after the BC had been written.

So don’t be surprised that many Latins know little about the East; the BC is still the default teaching mode for many.

 

[pickguard1]

Until vatican II abrogated it, the 3rd Plenary Baltimore Council’s (hereafter 3PBC) ruling that only their catechism could be used in the the United States; theirs was the one they were commissioning, which came to be known as the Baltimore Catechism (hereafter, BC).

It was specific to the Roman Church and Roman Rite (excluding even the other approved post-trent Western rites even by mention: Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Ambrosian, and Dalmation). I’ve met many Byzantines who have confused views because the liturgy didn’t match the Baltimore Catechism, but that was the only allowed catechism in the US, by the USCCB upholding 3PBC. And the Popes didn’t clarify that much until the era of Vatican II.

It became MUCH more clear in 1986, with the instruction to begin working on the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (commonly CCC), and with the promulgation of the Codex Canonicus Ecclesiam Orientalis (commonly CCEO). The CCC wasn’t released until later, and the codex for it during Pope Benedict’s reign, and we are assured that it is sound and binding upon all christians by it’s promulgation. (It’s promulgated as doctrine, not as dogma.)

Further, several of the Eastern Churches are working on catechisms for their particular churches. Not that these supersede the CCC; they augment them.

That most US, some Canadian, and not a few UK catholics grew up with the BC as the sole English Catechism for them to learn the faith, it is no wonder they have little clue as to the East; the BC makes almost no references to the East, and doesn’t acknowledge the East as having Catholics. When it was written, the ECC’s were in fact still under prohibition by the 1st Plenary Council of Baltimore, for it banned all but the Roman Missal within the dioceses of the United States. Pope Pius IX overrode that prohibition, but it was after the BC had been written.

So don’t be surprised that many Latins know little about the East; the BC is still the default teaching mode for many.

Wow! I was completely unaware that the Baltimore Catechism was the specific prescribed catechism (probably because I wasn’t alive before Vatican II, no doubt). I have a children’s catechism that was first published in the early 1900’s called “My Catholic Faith” that I got at my FSSP parish (actually my mom got it for me to help catechise my kids), and this was the first place I ever saw other churches besides the Roman church mentioned. I can’t remember when the Baltimore Catechism was published, but it’s the one that my wife used during her catechism classes for her conversion to Catholicism.