F
followingtheway
Guest
Wait, I always thought Western/Roman/Latin Rite Catholicism was the first and the Eastern Catholics just came back to us when the Eastern Orthodox split from us. Am I wrong?
- Status
M
MrPip
Guest
Not quite. Go back and look at reply #1. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It started in Jerusalem. All the Western/Eastern/Orthodox stuff came much later.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, you’re confusing rites with Sees. Of course, from there you get into a hairy argument on doctrinal development which then leads to the papacy.
Hesychios, or another knowledgeable eastern Christian could probably explain it pretty well. That tends to be their forte.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
The genesis question for this thread was “Which was the first [Catholic] Church?”. Had the question been “What is the oldest Rite?”, the answer may be different and perhaps more challenging to answer.
NOTE: The terms “Church” and “Rite” are sometime used interchangeably in current times to describe the constituent Churches of the entire Catholic Church. This is normally what causes confusion. In modern Catholic context, it is more proper to first identify the Church (a function of governance / hierarchical organization) and then the associated Rite representing the liturgucal expression and tradition followed by that Church.
But to answer the original question, we took a stroll back in time to the ancient Church. Remember, at the beginning, it was the twelve Apostles, blessed by the Holy Spirit, who were charged with spreading the Gospel of a new religion. They started their mission from the holy city of Jerusalem. It was there that they first gathered believers, a good number of whom had come to know Jesus in His lifetime. When the Apostles dispersed to begin their ministry and preaching along the trade routes of the ancient world, they left St. James the Lesser, Brother of Our Lord, in charge of the Church of Jerusalem. This was the first Church.
In these early times, Churches meant communities of believers, normally centered around a major metropolis of the day, lead by a senior bishop or Patriarch, together with other bishops and presbyters in these regions. There were five major partriarchial Churches of the ancient Church (in chronological order of foundation):
Jerusalem - founded by all the Apostles and left in the care of St. James
Antoich - founded by St. Peter
Rome - founded by St. Peter and where he remained as head of the Church
Alexandria - St. Mark
Constantinople - St. Andrew
Modern Orthodoxy most closely resembles the organization of the ancient Church as described above. There are Patriarchs who are the most senior of the bishops of jurisdictional churches - major modern examples include: Constantinople, Moscow, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, among others.
The ancient Churches and the Patriarchs were all considered equals, with special deference to the Church of Rome as the See of Peter, but not necessarily in the same manner as understood by Catholics today. By continuing tradition in the Catholic Church, the Church of Rome (the Holy See as it is now more often referenced) became the center as it was the seat of the ancient Church which St. Peter ministered from until his death in martyrdom. The sucession of St. Peter would thus be with the Bishop of Rome. Until the Catholic/Orthodox divide in 1054, these major ancient Churches comprised the One, Holy, Apostolic Church.
Rites are an extension of the these Churches in that the manner of worship took on a local flavor if you will, largely influnced by religious traditions of the new believers in each region. Liturgical practice evolved such that several unique expressions of divine worship came into usage. These are the Rites, if you will, and each did have roots in the ancient Churches, but evolved from local custom, language and in some cases from the Apostolic tradition of the saint or saints who were instrumental in bringing the faith to those peoples.
A good overview and chart can be found here:
mncuf.org/rites.htm
I hope this helps - high level introduction, but a humble and well-intentioned attempt. I do hope others (our brother Heschyios and others) may be able to elaborate more eloquently than I have perhaps done.
Peace!
M
MaroniteRosary
Guest
Some things are right and wrong. You mentioned the eastern Catholics who came back to the church, do you mean the Byzantine who carry the Orthodox tradition? Because the Maronite Church never separated.
And plus the church started in Jersulem, remember we were not always called the Catholic Church untill saint ignatius. We were once called The Church Of Christ.
Plus you also mentioned you thought the Roman Catholic Church was the first rite.
The Roman Catholics didn’t get there name untill British Protestants used it to insult the Latin Church. Then those Catholics who were insulted were like " You know what?, we are Roman Catholic because we are of the Roman Rite!" Aka Latin Rite.
Plus Christianity started in Antioch were we were first Called Christians. Peter came to Rome years after that. I personally think The Syriac Church is the first because that’s were Peter and alot of the Apostles were at.
I have also talked with other Catholics who believe the Syriac Church was the first.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
It is certainly true that the community of believers in Antoich were the first to be called [referred to as] Christians - Scripture tells us so, but how does that make the Church of Antioch the first Church? How does that make Antioch the place where Christianity began? What about all those folks back in Jerusalem? Where did the Holy Spirit descend on the Twelve, establishing the Church of Christ on Pentecost (often referred to as the “Birthday of the Church”)?
I do see where you were heading, and certainly due respect and reverence should be given to some of the oldest continuing Christian communities in existence (Praise be!), but we seem to be mixing up terminology with history.
Peace!
V
Vico
Guest
St. James (Iakovos) Adelphotheos, the First Bishop of Jerusalem, depicted enthroned with Christ, the Theotokos, and his father, St. Joseph the Betrothed
H
HKW
Guest
No, but its the only church to survive intact… Jerusalem was first, but it didnt last long until the Romans put a squash to thing around 70 AD, Antioch was also swept away, and Islam took over Alexandria… That only left the Sees of Constantinople and Rome, until 1453 when the Turks eliminated Constantinople…
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I’m not too sure what you could mean by intact. There are still bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and Rome was controlled for several periods of history by either the Eastern Roman Empire or by germanic tribes (not to mention the secular Italian government since 1870); there was even a period of time when Rome relocated to Avignon, similar to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, which moved to Damascus.
5
5Loaves
Guest
With the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter having been established 1/1/2012 by HH Benedict XVI I’m wondering, does the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham appear anywhere on the chart? Are there any other ordinariates besides these two for the Anglicans and the military ordinariate? Are these ordinariates “hidden”, for lack of a better term, within the square Rome-> Latin?
V
Vico
Guest
No, because it does not constitute a ritual Church sui iuris. It is part of the Latin Church. Thee Anglican Use in listed the liturgies however.
5
5Loaves
Guest
As a catechist it’s an interesting thing to try to explain when talking about the 23 Catholic Churches, that we also do have these unique entities within the Latin Church, while not a Church sui iuris however having their own patrimony which they exercise fully including their 900+ page Book of Divine Worship for use in their Anglican Use Mass, their Hours, and their Rites for the Sacraments. This is quite different from other marginally used liturgies of the Latin Church, which you list, such as the Ambrosian.
It seems like there also is the option for the ordinary of a married seminarian, as opposed to already ordained clergy who are married, to petition Rome for him to be ordained a priest. This would be unique in the Latin Church. Right now only married protestant clergy may be considered for ordination as a married Catholic priest.
Next stop for me, re-read Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. We worry about confusing catecheumens when we bring in the 22 EC/OCCs, LOL. I’m excited about the Personal Ordinariate finally arriving here in the US and I do want to find ways to coherently bring it up when we get into these discussion about “The Church” which have a way of leaving out even our brothers and sisters using the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, let alone the rest of the wealth of the Church.
As we say in the world of interpreting “You can’t interpret what you don’t understand”. Ditto for teaching. I need to work on my own clarity of understanding. BTW I posted your updated chart on my Russian parish bulletin board. We don’t have any place for such posting in my Latin parish, but I keep a copy in my RCIA bag.
V
Vico
Guest
What will help to explain it is that the Anglican ordinariate is subject to the Latin Canons (CIC) since members are enrolled in the Latin Church. Sacramental and Church discipline are in the canon law, but liturgical prescriptions are elaborated elsewhere.As a catechist it’s an interesting thing to try to explain when talking about the 23 Catholic Churches, that we also do have these unique entities within the Latin Church, while not a Church sui iuris however having their own patrimony which they exercise fully including their 900+ page Book of Divine Worship for use in their Anglican Use Mass, their Hours, and their Rites for the Sacraments. This is quite different from other marginally used liturgies of the Latin Church, which you list, such as the Ambrosian.
It seems like there also is the option for the ordinary of a married seminarian, as opposed to already ordained clergy who are married, to petition Rome for him to be ordained a priest. This would be unique in the Latin Church. Right now only married protestant clergy may be considered for ordination as a married Catholic priest.
Next stop for me, re-read Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. We worry about confusing catecheumens when we bring in the 22 EC/OCCs, LOL. I’m excited about the Personal Ordinariate finally arriving here in the US and I do want to find ways to coherently bring it up when we get into these discussion about “The Church” which have a way of leaving out even our brothers and sisters using the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, let alone the rest of the wealth of the Church.
BTW I posted your updated chart on my Russian parish bulletin board. We don’t have any place for such posting in my Latin parish, but I keep a copy in my RCIA bag.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
It’s the oldest of the current Catholic sui iuris churches, but remember that according to Catholic teaching the Orthodox (both eastern and oriental) and Assyrian churches count as valid churches too, and they were once in communion with Rome. Thus since Christianity began in Jerusalem, it’s more like this (although this is heavily simplified):
The Church starts in Jerusalem.
The Church begins to spread throughout the world.
Many, many centuries later, a schism develops between the Latin Church and the eastern churches.
At different points since then, certain people from the eastern churches have split from their churches to re-enter communion with Rome, and thus new “eastern Catholic churches” that exist in parallel to their Orthodox (or Assyrian) counterparts are formed.
See?
Those other churches are still intact, despite A.D. 70, Islamic conquests, and the fall of Constantinople. It’s just that not all of them are in communion with the Holy See at present.
Yes, from what I’ve read the Anglican Ordinariate is not an autonomous church but is part of the Latin Church.
When you take a closer look at anything, complications arise, and ecclesiology is no exception.
For instance, what about the Ruthenian Catholic Church? In the United States it’s organized into a synod with a Metropolitan bishop - the “Byzantine Catholic Church in America” - but this synod is hierarchically distinct and independent from the overseas Ruthenian Catholic eparchy and apostolic exarchate. Yet despite the autonomy involved, the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, the other Ruthenian eparchy, and the other Ruthenian apostolic exarchate are all considered to be one sui iuris church.
Really? These discussions, in your experience, tend to leave out “our brothers and sisters using the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”? How do they do that, when those Catholics are still part of the Latin Church? (This is an honest question, not baiting or a disagreementI’m excited about the Personal Ordinariate finally arriving here in the US and I do want to find ways to coherently bring it up when we get into these discussion about “The Church” which have a way of leaving out even our brothers and sisters using the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, let alone the rest of the wealth of the Church.
)
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
You are most correct in pointing out that ecclesiology can be complicated, especially within a diverse communion as is the Catholic Church, and you highlighted a very good instance.
Being Ruthenian, this one is near and dear to my heart.
I do agree with you in that we and our cousins abroad are often lumped together as if we were one sui juris Church, but that is not in fact how we are organized. That we are often lumped together as if we were one, unified sui juris Church is technically incorrect. It would probably be more correct to say we are one cohesive Ritual Church, following the virtually the same liturgical disciplines. One might also consider the Slovak Catholic Church in Canada to be part, as well.
We are not as well organized globally as our cousins in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, now formally designated a Major Achiepiscopal Church sui juris in its entirety. Of course, they number over 4 million believers (vs. 600 thousand or so Ruthenians) and are more geographically dispersed.
Peace!
- Status