What does it mean when a Church is Roman Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So anytime I hear the term Eastern Orthodox it is referring to Catholics?
No. EO are not in union with the chair of Peter or to those Churches in union with the pope. The EO are Not the Catholic Church
S:
Are there any Catholic groups that, like St. Stanislaus in St. Louis, call themselves Catholic but do not answer to any Bishop or the Vatican? In other words do all Catholics answer to the Pope
Yes. If they are Catholic, they answer to the pope

I’ll let an Eastern Catholic bishop fill in the answer

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
S:
or are we becoming like so many religions that are braking apart into different fractions?
Factions happen when one isn’t united to the pope. Factions are deadly to one’s soul

As Paul wrote in Gal 5:19-21.
 
Yes, we are both ‘Catholic’ (universal) and we are both ‘Orthodox’ (true-believing). 🤓

I was talking about common parlance, in which my statements holds.
In common parlance, Catholic is orthodox, NOT Orthodox.
 
First… Thank You so much for your time teaching me… I have taken in A LOT of info on the different treads in the short time I’ve been here.
It’s all good… glad we could help!
Let me see if I have this… The Schism, which is the split up, that created the Catholic and the Orthodox(which happened to be in the east… yes??) Churches(for names sake). Some of the “Orthodox” later returned to the “Catholic” and they are known as the Eastern Churches that are Catholic.
Sometimes, it’s easier to see it on a graph. I found this one on wiki, and for the most part, it looks good:



They’re trying to use the thickness of the line on the right hand side to represent the number of believers in each group, which makes for a bit of a mess in the graph. Also, they separate Catholics into ‘Roman’ and ‘Eastern’ and keep them separate (which presents two problems – first, we’re not separate (!), and second, we’re ‘Latin’ not ‘Roman’ 🤷).

Anyway, maybe it’ll help to see it portrayed graphically…
 
It’s all good… glad we could help!

Sometimes, it’s easier to see it on a graph. I found this one on wiki, and for the most part, it looks good:

They’re trying to use the thickness of the line on the right hand side to represent the number of believers in each group, which makes for a bit of a mess in the graph. Also, they separate Catholics into ‘Roman’ and ‘Eastern’ and keep them separate (which presents two problems – first, we’re not separate (!), and second, we’re ‘Latin’ not ‘Roman’ 🤷).

Anyway, maybe it’ll help to see it portrayed graphically…
Oh YES I do like pictures with color, they do and it does help!! 😃 Thanks!!

I’m sure I’ll screw up the Latin/Roman thing down the road just because the “Roman” is thrown around so much but will try to remember.

😉
 
Oh YES I do like pictures with color, they do and it does help!! 😃 Thanks!!

I’m sure I’ll screw up the Latin/Roman thing down the road just because the “Roman” is thrown around so much but will try to remember.

😉
The title “Christian” was actually created by non-believers as a sort of derogatory label–and the believers adopted it as their own as a badge of honor to Christ–sort of the the same thing for “Roman Catholic”–largely the Anglicans created it as an insult and we took at as a label of loyalty and fidelity.
 
The title “Christian” was actually created by non-believers as a sort of derogatory label–and the believers adopted it as their own as a badge of honor to Christ–sort of the the same thing for “Roman Catholic”–largely the Anglicans created it as an insult and we took at as a label of loyalty and fidelity.
👍

At some point I really would like to learn about the other major religions to help me better understand. The only knowledge I have is that the Baptists had a problem with at what point a person should be baptized, Protestants were started because a king wanted to get a divorce, and Lutherans thought that faith alone would get you into heaven. I always thought Baptists came straight from Catholics and Lutherans did not but the picture shows the opposite. Episcopalian and Evangelicals both start with E. :rolleyes:

😉
 
It’s all good… glad we could help!

Sometimes, it’s easier to see it on a graph. I found this one on wiki, and for the most part, it looks good:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nity.svg/500px-BranchesofChristianity.svg.png

They’re trying to use the thickness of the line on the right hand side to represent the number of believers in each group, which makes for a bit of a mess in the graph. Also, they separate Catholics into ‘Roman’ and ‘Eastern’ and keep them separate (which presents two problems -- first, we’re not separate (!), and second, we’re ‘Latin’ not ‘Roman’ 🤷).

Anyway, maybe it’ll help to see it portrayed graphically…
As you point out, that graph is a mess. It distorts and confuses. The Catholic Church is “The Church” of history, that is consistant from the beginning, regardless of who seperates from her… Too bad such a distortion is so readily accessable.

The real timeline that graph doesn’t depict.
  • Acts 9:31 “So** the church throughout all** [in the Greek, κατά kataὅλος holos ] Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied”.Kata holos = catholic.com/quickquestions/what-were-christians-called-before-st-ignatius-of-antioch-referred-to-them-as-catholi.
  • St Ignatius Bp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church [letter to the Church of Smyrna http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm”]Epistle to the Smyrnæans
  • St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
  • Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teachesall must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]
  • The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d.states it’s a matter of faith to believe in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
and as Jesus promised, His kingdom continues forever
 
Thank you all for your replies. Since Latins are called Roman, why so? What does Roman mean when it is referred to the Western Catholics?
 
Thank you all for your replies. Since Latins are called Roman, why so? What does Roman mean when it is referred to the Western Catholics?
Roman / Latin, refers to the rite. It makes up ~98% of the total of the Catholic Church in the world. The other rites make up ~2%. All rites are of equal dignity, all rites are 100% Catholic

"ROMAN/LATIN FAMILY OF LITURGICAL RITES
The Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the world and one of the five Patriarchal Sees of the early Church (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). Founded by St. Peter in 42 AD it was consecrated by the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul during the persecution of Nero (63–67 AD). It has maintained a continual existence since then and is the source of a family of Rites in the West. Considerable scholarship (such as that of Fr. Louis Boyer in Eucharist) suggests the close affinity of the Roman Rite proper with the Jewish prayers of the synagogue, which also accompanied the Temple sacrifices. While the origin of the current Rite, even in the reform of Vatican II, can be traced directly only to the 4th century, these connections point to an ancient apostolic tradition brought to that city that was decidedly Jewish in origin.
After the Council of Trent it was necessary to consolidate liturgical doctrine and practice in the face of the Reformation. Thus, Pope St. Pius V imposed the Rite of Rome on the Latin Church (that subject to him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West), allowing only smaller Western Rites with hundreds of years of history to remain. Younger Rites of particular dioceses or regions ceased to exist.
As a consequence of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Pope Paul VI undertook a reform of the Mass of the Roman Rite, promulgating a revised rite with the Missal of 1970. This Missal has since been modified twice (1975 and 2002). Mass celebrated in accordance with this missal is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

At the time of the revised Missal’s promulgation in 1970 almost all Catholics assumed that the previous rite, that of the Missal of 1962, had been abolished. By decision of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI this general assumption has been declared false and the right of Latin Rite priests to celebrate Mass according to the former missal has been affirmed (Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, 7 July 2007). Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missal of 1962 constitutes the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

• Roman – The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general.
– Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1970, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, currently in its third edition (2002). The vernacular editions of this Missal, as well as the rites of the other sacraments, are translated from the Latin typical editions revised after the Second Vatican Council.

– Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1962, promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. The other sacraments are celebrated according to the Roman Ritual in force at the time of the Second Vatican Council. The Extraordinary Form is most notable for being almost entirely in Latin. In addition to institutes which have the faculty to celebrate the Extraordinary Form routinely, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, any Latin Rite priest may now offer the Mass and other sacraments in accordance with norms of Summorum Pontificum."
 
I think what the Op is saying is what does Roman mean when it is used for the western Church. Roman is used for the west because western Catholics belong to the Church of Rome and the Roman pontiff 🙂
 
Roman / Latin, refers to the rite. It makes up ~98% of the total of the Catholic Church in the world. The other rites make up ~2%. All rites are of equal dignity, all rites are 100% Catholic

"ROMAN/LATIN FAMILY OF LITURGICAL RITES
The Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the world and one of the five Patriarchal Sees of the early Church (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). Founded by St. Peter in 42 AD it was consecrated by the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul during the persecution of Nero (63–67 AD). It has maintained a continual existence since then and is the source of a family of Rites in the West. Considerable scholarship (such as that of Fr. Louis Boyer in Eucharist) suggests the close affinity of the Roman Rite proper with the Jewish prayers of the synagogue, which also accompanied the Temple sacrifices. While the origin of the current Rite, even in the reform of Vatican II, can be traced directly only to the 4th century, these connections point to an ancient apostolic tradition brought to that city that was decidedly Jewish in origin.
After the Council of Trent it was necessary to consolidate liturgical doctrine and practice in the face of the Reformation. Thus, Pope St. Pius V imposed the Rite of Rome on the Latin Church (that subject to him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West), allowing only smaller Western Rites with hundreds of years of history to remain. Younger Rites of particular dioceses or regions ceased to exist.
As a consequence of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Pope Paul VI undertook a reform of the Mass of the Roman Rite, promulgating a revised rite with the Missal of 1970. This Missal has since been modified twice (1975 and 2002). Mass celebrated in accordance with this missal is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

At the time of the revised Missal’s promulgation in 1970 almost all Catholics assumed that the previous rite, that of the Missal of 1962, had been abolished. By decision of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI this general assumption has been declared false and the right of Latin Rite priests to celebrate Mass according to the former missal has been affirmed (Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, 7 July 2007). Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missal of 1962 constitutes the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

• Roman – The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general.
– Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1970, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, currently in its third edition (2002). The vernacular editions of this Missal, as well as the rites of the other sacraments, are translated from the Latin typical editions revised after the Second Vatican Council.

– Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1962, promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. The other sacraments are celebrated according to the Roman Ritual in force at the time of the Second Vatican Council. The Extraordinary Form is most notable for being almost entirely in Latin. In addition to institutes which have the faculty to celebrate the Extraordinary Form routinely, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, any Latin Rite priest may now offer the Mass and other sacraments in accordance with norms of Summorum Pontificum."
That’s OK I’ll use this info but I must make a note to myself to read it tomorrow… too many words and too tired to take it in right now. 👍

😉
 
I think what the Op is saying is what does Roman mean when it is used for the western Church. Roman is used for the west because western Catholics belong to the Church of Rome and the Roman pontiff 🙂
that’s true also 🙂

And for the OP’s info, the Eastern Churches in union with the Roman Pontiff also belong to the Roman Pontiff as well
 
Parts of some of the various groups separated from the Catholic Church later broke off and returned to the Catholic Church. So, to distinguish between them, and to acknowledge the fact that there were certain differences in ritual, the notion of differences of ‘rite’ were recognized. Those in the Catholic Church from the West were known as ‘Latin Rite’ Catholics; those from other rites (for example, Byzantine – Ukrainian or Ruthenian - and others) are known as ‘Eastern Rite’ Catholics.
Although the term “the Latin Rite” is commonly used, the Latin Church actually contains several rites.

Thus, the term “Latin Catholics” really encompasses not only Roman-Rite Catholics, but also Ambrosian-Rite Catholics, Bragan-Rite Catholics, Mozarabic-Rite Catholics, and others.

It’s a bit different with Eastern Catholics. For example, Ukrainian Catholics belong to the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) rather than the Latin Church, and they also use a rite that isn’t used in the Latin Church, namely the Byzantine Rite.
 
This also means that the Orthodox was the first to break away from the Catholic religion(before it was “Catholic”)?
Not correct. There were various schisms in the Church from the very beginning. Even among the currently recognized Apostolic Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East were the first to schism right after the Second Ecumenical Council because of the Nestorian controversy/heresy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top