What is the correct name for the Western Church?

[JReducation]

Is there a family tree type of history available anywhere, so a person can visually see how these Churches are related to one another?

Are non-Latin Churches on board with the Pope?
When a church uses a nationality name, for instance “Greek Catholic…”, Is this a separate branch of the the Latin Church or is it an Orthodox Church? All very confusing.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are truly Catholic and in full communion with Rome. There differences in theology and even in some dogmas. The most notable differences are in externals: the liturgy, religious life, disciplines that govern the sacraments, language, music, art and organization. Of course, they have their own code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law of 1983 does not apply to them. It only applies to the Latin Church. They also have much more autonomy, hence the term “sui iuris” in Latin. Which taken very literally means “their own law”. Their spirituality is different from the West. They have a much richer ascetic and mystic theology than we do. Much of our ascetical and mystical theology borrows very heavily from the East, even though most Catholics don’t know it and the few that know it are hesitant to admit it. The reason is very simple. While the Eastern Churches thrived in highly developed cultures in Northern Africa, the Middle East and Asia, the Western Church or Roman Church had to wait for the European Barbarians to catch up.

In the East, the culture helped shape the “Church’s look” if you will. In the West, it was the Church that brought culture to the region. One can say that Europe grew up in the cradle of Christianity, whereas Christianity grew up in the cradle of Eastern, Asian and North African culture. One Catholic tradition, but 23 spiritual traditions.

Many Roman Catholics believe that we don’t have to speak about Eastern Catholicism when speaking of traditional Catholicism. This is a fallacy. First, Patristic Theology is heavily Eastern. If we regard Sacred Tradition, we cannot ignore the East. Second, the world is shrinking. The East is no longer far away. We drop bombs on Iraq. We have political issues with Egypt, we outsource work to India. The Israelis and Palestinians are on the 6:00 news every night. Well guess what? Many Palestinians are Catholic as are some Israelis.

In addition, in my studies in Ascetical and Mystical Theology (aka: Spiritual Theology), there was no getting around Eastern Spirituality. One cannot read Benedict and ignore Basil. That would be like trying to have the Ying without the Yang. It does not work.

You can’t study the Franciscans and ignore Islam and Byzantine Catholicism. Both made very powerful impressions on St. Francis, which are reflected in this rule for the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, the third order that he founded. If we take the original rule of the Third Oder, not the rule that Pope Paul VI wrote, and place it side by side with Eastern practices of discipline and penance they are very similar. The Rule is younger. Obviously, the influence came from East to West. Whereas the rule of the first order, Rule of the Friars Minor, was written before Francis traveled East. It’s much more biblical and strongly influenced by Augustine. One can make an argument, “Was Augustine truly Roman Catholic?” The jury is still out. He was baptized into the Latin Church, but he exercised his ministry in Northern Africa and founded his monastery there, not in Europe.

 

[JReducation]

All sui juris churches are as Catholic as Roman Catholics are, its just the Orthodox who are not in. communion

The Eastern Churches are truly Catholic, even when they refer to themselves as Orthodox Catholics. The Eastern Orthodox are not Catholic.

However, a warning is important here. They are not schismatics either. The original fathers of the Great Schism were schismatics. The generations of people born into those Churches are not. They were never Catholic. You can’t be schismatic, if you never left to begin with. They are in schism, because they have an imperfect communion with Rome.

However, they have a true communion in sacris (in the sacred). They have valid and licit sacraments and a valid and licit priesthood. They have full Apostolic Succession, which is uninterrupted. Therefore, they are true Churches, not ecclesial communities as are the Protestants. For this reason, modern popes lifted the excommunications and anathemas against them. They lifted the excommunications and anathemas against us.

One would ask, “Can they legitimately excommunicate Catholics?” The answer is a resounding “Yes they can.” Why? Because a Patriarch has the authority to excommunicate. An excommunication is a penalty, not a statement about your soul. Pope John Paul said it best when he said that both sides are equally culpable for the Great Schism. There is enough dirt there to share.

On the flip side, Pope Benedict has said that the Orthodox Churches are the other lung of the Christian Church. They are the Eastern lung. Hence it’s important to achieve communion. One body with two lungs functioning in isolation is a divided body, contrary to the mind of Christ.

The greatest problem toward reunification is not with the the leadership of the Latin Church or the Orthodox Churches. Believe it or not, the greatest obstacle comes from the leadership of the Eastern Churches. There is a genuine fear that reunification will subjugate them to Rome in some way. It’s a legitimate fear. The Latin Church is by far the largest and more influential in the world. The laity and the clergy on both sides is by and large very ignorant of the the other side. They tend to hold grudges and fight over things that our leaders do not fight over.

When you hear a dialogue between the Patriarchs of Orthodox and Catholics, it’s much more civil and focuses on the issue of unity and autonomy. When you observe a dialogue between the laity and clergy of both sides, it’s like a cat fight in an alley. The calm dialogue and the acceptance of the fact that there is room in the Church for theological differences has not struck home with the clergy and the laity. As a result, both sides tend to hold on to their positions as if the other side was a threat to their spiritual patrimony.

In this regard, I believe that the Traditionalist Movement may have something good to offer toward reunification. The Traditionalist Movement is a visible sign of continuity within a changing Catholic culture that does not change in faith and morals. To the Orthodox, this continuity is very important. They’re comfortable with continuity and uncomfortable with too much fluctuation. But the Traditionalist Movement has to open its mind up to the possibility of theological differences in continuity. The Orthodox have less problems with this than we do. They have more problems with accepting the fact that culture has changed and they can no longer dictate to culture as the Church once did, simply because culture will not submit to the authority of the Church and it cannot be used as the secular arm of the Church as it was the case once upon a time.

In essence. Catholic traditionalists and Orthodox together can be the prophetic voice of ecclesial continuity in the midst of evolving cultures. To do this, both sides have to lay aside their preconceived prejudices and fears.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV