Why do Eastern Catholics identify the Latin church ( Roman Catholic )?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BVMFatima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BVMFatima

Guest
This is something I have always wondered because the Vatican does not call the Latin church Roman catholic itself, so why are we identified Roman Catholic?
 
BVMFatima said:
This is something I have always wondered because the Vatican does not call the Latin church Roman catholic itself, so why are we identified Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...
From the time of St. Peter the Popes have resided mostly in Rome and of course Latin was the language of the Roman Empire and the official language of the Church - and still is. Whereas the language in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire was predominately Greek - at least until Islam had become firmly established in the East. You do know that Constantine the Great moved the seat of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in the 4th century? But the Papacy stayed in Rome. I was unaware that the Eastern Rite Catholics ( of various sorts) referred to Roman Catholics as Latin Catholics. Interesting. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
From the time of St. Peter the Popes have resided mostly in Rome and of course Latin was the language of the Roman Empire and the official language of the Church - and still is. Whereas the language in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire was predominately Greek - at least until Islam had become firmly established in the East. You do know that Constantine the Great moved the seat of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in the 4th century? But the Papacy stayed in Rome. I was unaware that the Eastern Rite Catholics ( of various sorts) referred to Roman Catholics as Latin Catholics. Interesting. 👍
Click to expand...
I think it’s a way of distinguishing traditions, from locative aspects. We belong to the Roman Church. However, within the greater Roman church, there are 22 other autonomous churches, with their own traditions.
 
lssanjose said:
there are 22 other autonomous churches
Click to expand...
well, not really “autonomous” in the Orthodox sense

and not quite as self governing as “sui juris” might suggest

but you’re getting the gist of it …
 
lssanjose said:
I think it’s a way of distinguishing traditions, from locative aspects. We belong to the Roman Church. However, within the greater Roman church, there are 22 other autonomous churches, with their own traditions.
Click to expand...
I think what the OP is getting at is that we belong to the Latin Church and not the Roman Catholic Church per se. Its all terminology and nomenclature. I think it is because all things being said, we use the Roman Rites.
Perhaps if you think about it like this. The Latin Church, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, has various rites, some peculiar local rites like the Ambrosian or Moasarabic, others associated with particular religious orders, nonetheless we are all under the Pope as a sui juris Church. Roman Pontiff = Roman Church. Maybe the view is, as is the case as far as I can see, rite normally follows partriarchal see. In the Latin Church we predominantly use the Roman rites, and are under the Roman Pontiff.🤷
 
Pilgrim1701 said:
I think what the OP is getting at is that we belong to the Latin Church and not the Roman Catholic Church per se. Its all terminology and nomenclature. I think it is because all things being said, we use the Roman Rites.
Perhaps if you think about it like this. The Latin Church, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, has various rites, some peculiar local rites like the Ambrosian or Moasarabic, others associated with particular religious orders, nonetheless we are all under the Pope as a sui juris Church. Roman Pontiff = Roman Church. Maybe the view is, as is the case as far as I can see, rite normally follows partriarchal see. In the Latin Church we predominantly use the Roman rites, and are under the Roman Pontiff.🤷
Click to expand...
Which makes us Roman Catholics because we belong to the Roman Church
 
Re: Why do Eastern Catholics identify the Latin church ( Roman Catholic )?
BVMFatima said:
This is something I have always wondered because the Vatican does not call the Latin church Roman catholic itself, so why are we identified Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...
BVMFatima said:
Which makes us Roman Catholics because we belong to the Roman Church
Click to expand...
So what’s your complaint?
That we are part of the Latin Church and are called Roman Catholics by the Easterns?.
Or that we are part of the Roman Catholic Church and the Easterns call us Latin Catholics? Your title implies you think we should be called Latin, yet your saying in the last post that we are Roman? 🤷🤷
 
Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church following the “Roman” or “Latin” rite, just as the different “Eastern” Catholic Churches are Catholic Churches following different “Eastern” rites. The Latin language became the liturgical language of Roman Church only sometime after the 5th century. Till then the Roman Church, as well as, many of the Eastern Churches had Greek as their liturgical language. There is no doubt that the original worshipping language of the Apostles and of the early Jewish Christians was Aramaic, which slowly gave way to Greek, as more and more gentiles became Christians. (By the way, Peter was never the bishop of Rome. The first recorded bishop of Rome was Linus, who received the “episcopate” after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul: pl. see Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius; bk 3 Ch.2. The only Apostle who ever installed a bishop was James, who was the bishop of Jerusalem. The early Church Fathers and Tradition recognize that the bishop of Rome, to be the occupant of the seat of Kepha (Peter), the Rock)
 
Pilgrim1701 said:
I think what the OP is getting at is that we belong to the Latin Church and not the Roman Catholic Church per se. Its all terminology and nomenclature. I think it is because all things being said, we use the Roman Rites.
Perhaps if you think about it like this. The Latin Church, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, has various rites, some peculiar local rites like the Ambrosian or Moasarabic, others associated with particular religious orders, nonetheless we are all under the Pope as a sui juris Church. Roman Pontiff = Roman Church. Maybe the view is, as is the case as far as I can see, rite normally follows partriarchal see. In the Latin Church we predominantly use the Roman rites, and are under the Roman Pontiff.🤷
Click to expand...
As you say, the other Western Rites, like Ambrosian and Mozarabic, are only used by a very small percentage of Latin Catholics nowadays. (In the past 5 centuries, some Western Rites became extinct, and the rest came very close to extinction, except for the Roman Rite.) Nevertheless, the term “Latin Catholic” does technically include those other Western Rites.
 
TomKocherry said:
Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church following the “Roman” or “Latin” rite, just as the different “Eastern” Catholic Churches are Catholic Churches following different “Eastern” rites. The Latin language became the liturgical language of Roman Church only sometime after the 5th century. Till then the Roman Church, as well as, many of the Eastern Churches had Greek as their liturgical language. There is no doubt that the original worshipping language of the Apostles and of the early Jewish Christians was Aramaic, which slowly gave way to Greek, as more and more gentiles became Christians. (By the way, Peter was never the bishop of Rome. The first recorded bishop of Rome was Linus, who received the “episcopate” after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul: pl. see Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius; bk 3 Ch.2. The only Apostle who ever installed a bishop was James, who was the bishop of Jerusalem. The early Church Fathers and Tradition recognize that the bishop of Rome, to be the occupant of the seat of Kepha (Peter), the Rock)
Click to expand...
James the Just, the First Bishop of Jerusalem, was not an Apostle. The Apostles were James, the brother of John, and James the Less.

This actually supports the claim that Apostles never took any episcopate seat in any Church they established. Even in Jerusalem at the time before the Apostles went out to the world, not one of them sat as the chief elder of the Church.
 
ConstantineTG said:
James the Just, the First Bishop of Jerusalem, was not an Apostle. The Apostles were James, the brother of John, and James the Less.

This actually supports the claim that Apostles never took any episcopate seat in any Church they established. Even in Jerusalem at the time before the Apostles went out to the world, not one of them sat as the chief elder of the Church.
Click to expand...
James the Just WAS an apostle. He was called “the Just” because of his very gentle and exemplory demeanour. Eusebeus quotes Clement to assert this fact. Except James, no other Apostle is recorded to have assumed any Episcopate. God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top