What does it mean to be "in communion with Rome?"

[Vico]

Rites and sui juris churches are two distinct things. There are five eastern rites and 22 sui juris churches. 14 of the sui juris churches belong to the Byzantine Rite.

I dislike the sui juris concept–it seems to compromise the unity of the Church. Ideally, there would be a way of safeguarding diversity of rite without having different Catholics in the same place be under different bishops, which is radically opposed to the teachings of the Fathers.

Edwin

Sure. Each Church sui iuris is of its own canon laws and liturgy. The various ways of living the faith that come from the traditions are the rites that various ritual Churches use. That way is the rite.

Traditions: Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, Constantinopolitan, Latin.

Most of the traditions have more than ritual Church and more than one rite.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t like the “wiring” language. It sounds almost racial …

Wow - that’s a rather shocking comment. These are inherently cultural differences, and “wiring” is simply an idiomatic way of saying that we are trained and inculturated to understand things from a certain common perspective. Object to the analogy or terminology if you must, but to even suggest a racial overtone is deeply troubling must be received with grave concern on my part.

 

[TEPO]

Wow - that’s a rather shocking comment. These are inherently cultural differences, and “wiring” is simply an idiomatic way of saying that we are trained and inculturated to understand things from a certain common perspective. Object to the analogy or terminology if you must, but to even suggest a racial overtone is deeply troubling must be received with grave concern on my part.

I can see how it can be viewed as racial. I’m sure many others can as well. I just don’t understand why there needs to be such a distinction between culture and race when neither one is better or worse than the other, in fact I’m sure that race has a lot to do with culture and likewise culture with race.

Whether this is good or not for the Holy Church I can’t say for sure, but I do know that it’s not evil. at least I don’t think so.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I can see how it can be viewed as racial. I’m sure many others can as well. I just don’t understand why there needs to be such a distinction between culture and race when neither one is better or worse than the other, in fact I’m sure that race has a lot to do with culture and likewise culture with race.

Race and culture are interrelated, yes, but not the same.

And BTW - there was clearly no value judgment being made in my original comment.

That said, in American culture, even the mere inference of being racist is enough to damage one’s reputation in a serious manner. So, despite the cautionary note and further commentary, the mere fact that such an inference was made publicly here must be viewed with concern.

FWIW and for the record, it was not even close to being a racially oriented remark in intent. AFAIK, the Catholic Church embraces all peoples of all races and cultures, as does Christ. I’ll do my part and try to follow his example, and not infer of others that which can indeed be personally damaging in the process.

 

[TEPO]

Race and culture are interrelated, yes, but not the same.

And BTW - there was clearly no value judgment being made in my original comment.

That said, in American culture, even the mere inference of being racist is enough to damage one’s reputation in a serious manner. So, despite the cautionary note and further commentary, the mere fact that such an inference was made publicly here must be viewed with concern.

FWIW and for the record, it was not even close to being a racially oriented remark in intent. AFAIK, the Catholic Church embraces all peoples of all races and cultures, as does Christ. I’ll do my part and try to follow his example, and not infer of others that which can indeed be personally damaging in the process.

I’m not exactly convinced that reputation is much of an important matter at all. My purpose is not to Persuede or convince, but rather to be humble and true, which in itself becomes an example, but only secondarily to my primary mission… (Which is to be humble and true).

…But, if race and culture are naturally bound, and this is the truth, then so be it as far as I’m concerned, regardless of whether there really is a single culture in America or if there are multitudes of race-based cultures here living side by side, though some large in size and others very small.

 

[IbnFiktur]

I think the Eastern orientation is quite simply *better. *That’s not to say that the Western approach lacks value or that the Church should simply reject it–which is one reason I don’t become Orthodox. But I’m frustrated by the segregation of rites in the Catholic Church. I know why it exists, but it seems to diminish the unity of the Church, and it allows Westerners and Easterners to go their own separate ways, much as Protestant denominations do.

I think Westerners badly need to be “Easternized.” Our historic legalism is not heretical, but it is deeply unhealthy. But the current language of “breathing with both lungs” and maintaining a kind of separate-but-equal status seems to work against this.

However, since I’m not actually Catholic but an outsider who has long desired to be an insider and thus often pretends to be one (not literally in a deceptive sense but in the sense of saying things that outsiders really have no right to say), perhaps I just don’t get how it works.

I very much like and agree with this post, hence my expanding interest in Eastern theology. That said, I deeply sympathize with you; I have a deep love for Western theologians (Augustine in particular), and I don’t particularly like being “pigeon-holed” into an “Eastern” or “Western” rite or manner of thinking. I certainly don’t think the Church forces one to think either in an “Eastern” or “Western” mindset, but the dialogue seems to be going in that direction, where you are simply one or the other.

@TEPO:

I’m a little disturbed by the entrance of the concept of “race” into this discussion. The idea that “race” and “culture” are intrinsically interconnected is dubious, and I think more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than an actual truth. Race, especially in the post 19th-century world, has taken on a sort of “genetic” meaning, implying that different peoples are inherently a certain way by virtue of how their ethnic background (as opposed to the orientation of theological thought they were brought up in, for instance). I think it would be best to view “Eastern” and “Western” theology as different by virtue of the fact that they developed under different linguistic and political circumstances than to say that they developed as a result of the racial makeup of Eastern and Western peoples.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all. I fell behind on reading this thread yesterday, and just now caught up.

I don’t think Contarini’s post,

I don’t like the “wiring” language. It sounds almost racial (I’m not calling you a racist–I’m simply saying that the language of “wiring” sounds as if you’re saying that there are deeprooted differences that are beyond our control), as if Westerners and Easterners were different subspecies.

is talking about racism. Rather, I believe he’s saying that there’s some of kind of *phyletism *going on. (Not to ignore the other parts of your post, Contarini; I just wanted to comment on that particular part.)

 

[TEPO]

Peter J:

I very much like and agree with this post, hence my expanding interest in Eastern theology. That said, I deeply sympathize with you; I have a deep love for Western theologians (Augustine in particular), and I don’t particularly like being “pigeon-holed” into an “Eastern” or “Western” rite or manner of thinking. I certainly don’t think the Church forces

one to think either in an “Eastern” or “Western” mindset, but the dialogue seems to be going in that direction, where you are simply one or the other.

@TEPO:

I’m a little disturbed by the entrance of the concept of “race” into this discussion. The idea that “race” and “culture” are intrinsically interconnected is dubious, and I think more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than an actual truth. Race, especially in the post 19th-century world, has taken on a sort of “genetic” meaning, implying that different peoples are inherently a certain way by virtue of how their ethnic background (as opposed to the orientation of theological thought they were brought up in, for instance). I think it would be best to view “Eastern” and “Western” theology as different by virtue of the fact that they developed under different linguistic and political circumstances than to say that they developed as a result of the racial makeup of Eastern and Western peoples.

Hi all. I fell behind on reading this thread yesterday, and just now caught up.

I don’t think Contarini’s post,

is talking about racism. Rather, I believe he’s saying that there’s some of kind of *phyletism *going on. (Not to ignore the other parts of your post, Contarini; I just wanted to comment on that particular part.)

There is another thread on Phyletism here on CAF, for those who wish to go further into detail about it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9537527#post9537527

 

[TEPO]

I don’t like the “wiring” language. It sounds almost racial (I’m not calling you a racist–I’m simply saying that the language of “wiring” sounds as if you’re saying that there are deeprooted differences that are beyond our control), as if Westerners and Easterners were different subspecies.

I think the Eastern orientation is quite simply *better. *That’s not to say that the Western approach lacks value or that the Church should simply reject it–which is one reason I don’t become Orthodox. But I’m frustrated by the segregation of rites in the Catholic Church. I know why it exists, but it seems to diminish the unity of the Church, and it allows Westerners and Easterners to go their own separate ways, much as Protestant denominations do.

I think Westerners badly need to be “Easternized.” Our historic legalism is not heretical, but it is deeply unhealthy. But the current language of “breathing with both lungs” and maintaining a kind of separate-but-equal status seems to work against this.

However, since I’m not actually Catholic but an outsider who has long desired to be an insider and thus often pretends to be one (not literally in a deceptive sense but in the sense of saying things that outsiders really have no right to say), perhaps I just don’t get how it works.

** The Decree on Ecumenism [no. 17]of the Second Vatican Council says, “In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God’s truth”

“It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting.”**
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[TEPO]

cultural differences, and “wiring” is simply an idiomatic way of saying that we are trained and inculturated to understand things from a certain common perspective.

Yes, this is true, but only Intellectually in this world… Spiritually though, and through eternity, these differences do not exist.

 

[yorepaw]

Friends;

Please forgive me, but I’m still learning how to use the internet for evangelization purposes. But let me clarify something here; while I am not technically savvy in all respects, or completely theologically informed in all disciplines, I do claim to be a theodydact (God-Taught). My shortcomings adhere specifically to internet forums such as this.

So with that clarification, let me say this: We (as Eastern Catholics) don’t necessarily affirm that the primacy of Peter will eternally reside with the patriarchate of Rome, or that the supremacy of the bishop of Rome will eternally preside with historic Rome. But in my personal estimation, I can affirm and do confirm that the patriarchate of Rome has been the most fervent and consistent advocate of apostolic succession that I have experienced as an individual Orthodox/Catholic christian.

So, in summary, it is very possible that the historic city of old Rome may be destroyed at some time in the future (may God forbid). Just as the historic primacy of the city of Constantinople (the New Rome) and the historic primacy of Moscow (the third New Rome) may be destroyed. As they all most likely will be at some point in time.

So where is the eternal Zion/Jerusalem/Rome? None of us would immediately call ourselves anti-zionist, or anti-semitic, and hopefully not anti-Roman,But we would certainly call ourselves 'the people of God, or the people of the new covenant, or even the people of the the new covenant. But where (or what) is our locus of worship. Is it a place (a politcal state) or is it a condition (a spiritual state).

In accordance with the Union of Brest, we agree not to argue over the question of whether Purgatory is a place or a condition. We also agree to not to argue over other questions of reflective theology as opposed to fundamental theology.

I, YOREPAW, am Eastern Catholic, and proud of it.

 

[Vico]

Friends;

Please forgive me, but I’m still learning how to use the internet for evangelization purposes. But let me clarify something here; while I am not technically savvy in all respects, or completely theologically informed in all disciplines, I do claim to be a theodydact (God-Taught). My shortcomings adhere specifically to internet forums such as this.

So with that clarification, let me say this: We (as Eastern Catholics) don’t necessarily affirm that the primacy of Peter will eternally reside with the patriarchate of Rome, or that the supremacy of the bishop of Rome will eternally preside with historic Rome. But in my personal estimation, I can affirm and do confirm that the patriarchate of Rome has been the most fervent and consistent advocate of apostolic succession that I have experienced as an individual Orthodox/Catholic christian.

So, in summary, it is very possible that the historic city of old Rome may be destroyed at some time in the future (may God forbid). Just as the historic primacy of the city of Constantinople (the New Rome) and the historic primacy of Moscow (the third New Rome) may be destroyed. As they all most likely will be at some point in time.

So where is the eternal Zion/Jerusalem/Rome? None of us would immediately call ourselves anti-zionist, or anti-semitic, and hopefully not anti-Roman,But we would certainly call ourselves 'the people of God, or the people of the new covenant, or even the people of the the new covenant. But where (or what) is our locus of worship. Is it a place (a politcal state) or is it a condition (a spiritual state).

In accordance with the Union of Brest, we agree not to argue over the question of whether Purgatory is a place or a condition. We also agree to not to argue over other questions of reflective theology as opposed to fundamental theology.

I, YOREPAW, am Eastern Catholic, and proud of it.

It might make more sense using the idea that “Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch”:Without presuming to consider the complex historical question of the title of patriarch in all its aspects, it can be said from the historical point of view that the ancient patriarchs of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a fairly clearly defined territory, where the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), in addition to the four Eastern Patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Conversely, Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title “Patriarch of the West,” the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.

Press Release About The Abolition Of The Title “Patriarch of the West” From The 2006 Pontifical Yearbook Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_general-docs.htm

 

[TEPO]

Friends;

Please forgive me, but I’m still learning how to use the internet for evangelization purposes. But let me clarify something here; while I am not technically savvy in all respects, or completely theologically informed in all disciplines, I do claim to be a theodydact (God-Taught). My shortcomings adhere specifically to internet forums such as this.

So with that clarification, let me say this: We (as Eastern Catholics) don’t necessarily affirm that the primacy of Peter will eternally reside with the patriarchate of Rome, or that the supremacy of the bishop of Rome will eternally preside with historic Rome. But in my personal estimation, I can affirm and do confirm that the patriarchate of Rome has been the most fervent and consistent advocate of apostolic succession that I have experienced as an individual Orthodox/Catholic christian.

So, in summary, it is very possible that the historic city of old Rome may be destroyed at some time in the future (may God forbid). Just as the historic primacy of the city of Constantinople (the New Rome) and the historic primacy of Moscow (the third New Rome) may be destroyed. As they all most likely will be at some point in time.

So where is the eternal Zion/Jerusalem/Rome? None of us would immediately call ourselves anti-zionist, or anti-semitic, and hopefully not anti-Roman,But we would certainly call ourselves 'the people of God, or the people of the new covenant, or even the people of the the new covenant. But where (or what) is our locus of worship. Is it a place (a politcal state) or is it a condition (a spiritual state).

In accordance with the Union of Brest, we agree not to argue over the question of whether Purgatory is a place or a condition. We also agree to not to argue over other questions of reflective theology as opposed to fundamental theology.

I, YOREPAW, am Eastern Catholic, and proud of it.

Welcome, Yorepaw. To give you the most truthful answer I can -our Locus is not of this world, it’s nations, it’s linguistics, it’s cultures, it’s ethnicities or it’s politics. It’s in our conscience, which is a Spiritual “state”…

Nice post by the way… Seems like you do quite well on these forums.

 

[Portofino]

Its hard for one starting from a Latin mindset to comprehend that those of Eastern orientation do not look at things legalistically.

Even Catholics who reject the “legalism” epithet (which tends to have negative associations) can certainly agree that Roman Catholicism is more juridicial in its orientation. It’s been speculated that this is due in part to the heritage of Roman jurisprudence, yes?

In any case, I have a Catholic friend who pointed out that it is perhaps no coincidence that multiple justices of the current Supreme Court are Roman Catholics. And, indeed, when I’ve read papal encyclicals, they remind me very much of the way in which Supreme Court decisions are laid out (very methodical and reasoned, with a painstaking emphasis on the minutiae of the law, and very aware that it is setting doctrinal precedent).

Not to mention the Catholic Code of Canon Law…

 

[ProdigalSon1211]

Ok, I see the difference between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Coptic Catholic Church.

But, how come in the Coptic Orthodox Church it has the word “Catholic” in The Nicene Creed?

nacopts.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74%3Astatement-of-faith-the-nicene-creed&catid=13%3Aabout-the-church&Itemid=29

 

[Peter_J]

But, how come in the Coptic Orthodox Church it has the word “Catholic” in The Nicene Creed?

It’s important to distinguish between conventions and actual beliefs. The *convention *is that we called ourselves Catholic, and they call themselves Orthodox; but in terms of actual beliefs, each side believes that they are the ones who are both catholic and orthodox.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

CTS, publisher to the Holy See and clearly part of the Roman Catholic Church (Church as in “1 of the 23”) explicitly states in its booklet on this matter that the correct term is “Church”.
So, seems to be some confusion here… Looking for clarification!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

CTS, publisher to the Holy See and clearly part of the Roman Catholic Church (Church as in “1 of the 23”) explicitly states in its booklet on this matter that the correct term is “Church”.
So, seems to be some confusion here… Looking for clarification!

A cursory read of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (including reflection on the very title) should confirm that they are, indeed, Churches.

Further:

1. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

source: ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM (21 Nov 1964)

 

[Vico]

CTS, publisher to the Holy See and clearly part of the Roman Catholic Church (Church as in “1 of the 23”) explicitly states in its booklet on this matter that the correct term is “Church”.
So, seems to be some confusion here… Looking for clarification!

The term Roman Catholic Church is not used in canon law, rather Catholic Church is used.

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 32:Membership in the Catholic Church is never “at large”; instead, a person is enrolled in a specific church sui iuris, determined according to law. Whether it is a case of reception of baptism or entrance into full communion, membership is determined by the law as a consequence of the act whether or not the baptism or entrance actually occurs in the church sui iuris as stipulated by the law (see c. 111 §2).

CIC (Latin Canon Law)
Can. 112
§1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:
1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;
3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.
§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

CCEO (eastern canon law)
Canon 29

1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
   (1) born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
   (2) born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied;
   (3) born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.

 

[Peter_J]

The term Roman Catholic Church is not used in canon law, rather Catholic Church is used.

Personally, I have used the term “Roman Catholic” sometimes in the past, but lately I’ve been trying to avoid using it because of its multiplicity of meanings: Sometimes it is used as a substitute for “Latin Catholic” and other times it’s used to mean everyone in communion with Rome.