Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Quick question: Non-Eastern-Rite Catholics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quick question: Non-Eastern-Rite Catholics

    When reading things online, I've occasionally run across Catholics saying that they don't wish to be referred to as Roman Catholic--"We're not Romans, just Catholic" is the sentiment. However, there are different Churches and different Rites within the Catholic Church, correct? So what would be the best way of referring to Western-style (Roman Rite) Catholics specifically for the purpose of distinguishing them from any of the various Eastern Rite Catholics, like the Byzantine Catholics?

    Basically, I want to know what terminology I can use that would be clear in distinguishing what kind of Catholic is being referred to but would not be disrespectful or going against the wishes of Catholics.

  • #2
    Referring to us as Latin or Roman Rite works and fits with the pattern. I would probably go with Latin Rite Catholics.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #3
      I always thought "Roman Catholic" was a bit like "Jumbo Shrimp". I mean, make up your mind -- which ARE you?
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • #4
        Maybe we should call ourselves Western Orthodox. Seriously, Roman Catholic is not a derogatory term. Shunyadragon refuses to use the Catholic word and just refers to the Roman church because he wants to emphasize that it (and other Christian, Jewish, etc) faiths are not really universal for all man(and woman)kind. So, while the 'Roman' part may certainly be used in a derogatory fashion, it really just means that Rome was one of the most prominent ancient dioceases that was traditionally thought of as in some sense founded by an apostle: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome. Later on Constantinople was added to what some called the Patriarchal Pentarchy. Other dioceases had traditions of being founded by an apostle, but were not as prominent. Rome and Constantinople (Ecumenical Patriarch) both had some sense of being the more or most important See, but Rome (traditional site of the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul) was the only ancient See to maintain such power and influence into modern times. The declaration of papal infallibility was the last gasp of an ancient imperial claim in the face of the coming age of modernity. The papacy was sometimes able to function as an effective symbol of unity in the European world; but now it seems to be mostly a media meme. It will be interesting to see what, if any, attempts to forge Christian unity in the postmodern world succeed.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          a) The citizens of the Byzantine Empire considered themselves the "Roman Catholics" because they were the remnant of the Roman Empire and they considered the see of Rome to be schismatic.

          2) IIRC Constantinople was considered a patriarchal see before Jerusalem was (the church in Jerusalem pretty much had to start from scratch after the edict against the Jews following the bar Kochba revolt, and was quite minor for some time after that).

          III) The Copts are not far from reunification with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is significant dialogue between East and West, but there remain many obstacles to reunification.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            a) The citizens of the Byzantine Empire considered themselves the "Roman Catholics" because they were the remnant of the Roman Empire and they considered the see of Rome to be schismatic.

            2) IIRC Constantinople was considered a patriarchal see before Jerusalem was (the church in Jerusalem pretty much had to start from scratch after the edict against the Jews following the bar Kochba revolt, and was quite minor for some time after that).

            III) The Copts are not far from reunification with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is significant dialogue between East and West, but there remain many obstacles to reunification.
            I'm sure that the title of 'patriarch' did not develop until after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 and 135, but it was always understood to be older than Constantinople. That's all I was saying here.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              Referring to us as Latin or Roman Rite works and fits with the pattern. I would probably go with Latin Rite Catholics.
              So "Roman Catholic" is (by some people's preference) not okay, but "Roman Rite Catholic" or "Latin Rite Catholic" is correct? Well okay then.

              Thank you for the answer, Spartacus, and to everyone else, thanks for the interesting reading material.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Maybe we should call ourselves Western Orthodox.
                IIRC the EO service for the reception of heterodox has, at least in the text I've heard used, a few places where the Orthodox Church refers to itself as Catholic even outside of the Nicene Creed--something like the "Catholic Orthodox Church." Not 100% sure on the wording, but if Catholics referred to themselves as Western Orthodox, the appropriation of each other's terms would be mutual, which would be amusing.

                It would also make everything at least sound very neat and tidy, with Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Western Orthodox, and people could lump them all together and say things like, "What's the difference between Orthodox and Christian?" instead of "What's the difference between Catholic and Christian?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparrow View Post
                  IIRC the EO service for the reception of heterodox has, at least in the text I've heard used, a few places where the Orthodox Church refers to itself as Catholic even outside of the Nicene Creed--something like the "Catholic Orthodox Church." Not 100% sure on the wording, but if Catholics referred to themselves as Western Orthodox, the appropriation of each other's terms would be mutual, which would be amusing.

                  It would also make everything at least sound very neat and tidy, with Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Western Orthodox, and people could lump them all together and say things like, "What's the difference between Orthodox and Christian?" instead of "What's the difference between Catholic and Christian?"
                  My diocese is formally the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the U.S.A." So there.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not Catholic anymore (being a reformed Charismatic), but back when I was a member of the RCC, in South Africa, we called just called ourselves Catholics. My referring to them as Roman Catholics is more recent than that as I started interact with Catholics who were Eastern Rite etc.

                    The order that ran the scholasticate that I used to go to Church at were the Oblates of the Mary Immaculate.
                    "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
                    -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

                    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                    1 Corinthians 16:13

                    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                    -Ben Witherington III

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      My diocese is formally the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the U.S.A." So there.
                      Wow!
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        My diocese is formally the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the U.S.A." So there.
                        Slava Isusu Christu!

                        Coincidentally, I very recently visited Byzantine Catholic church with a Carpatho-Russian heritage. It was a nice parish, though I suppose the connection to your diocese is tenuous at best.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparrow View Post
                          Slava Isusu Christu!

                          Coincidentally, I very recently visited Byzantine Catholic church with a Carpatho-Russian heritage. It was a nice parish, though I suppose the connection to your diocese is tenuous at best.
                          The diocese was formed because, in the 1930's, Rome (or its American representatives) was adamant that its Eastern Rite priests be celibate. As a result, a large number of Carpatho-Rusyn parishes in the US got together and petitioned the Ecumenical Patriarch to receive them back into Orthodoxy. That happened in 1937. A large portion of the OCA is also of Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine Catholic heritage, received piecemeal into Orthodoxy by the Russian church around the 1890's. The parishes in my diocese did not join with the Russians because the Russians required them to take up Russian liturgical practices, and they didn't want to do that. The Ecumenical Patriarch allowed them to keep their historic practices (particularly their prostopinije (plain chant)). The service you saw there is probably nearly identical to mine (except they commemorate the pope and IIRC include the filioque in the Creed).
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            The service you saw there is probably nearly identical to mine (except they commemorate the pope and IIRC include the filioque in the Creed).
                            They did commemorate the Pope; they did not include the filioque. Moreover, when I spoke with their pastor, he specifically told me that even when he is celebrating the Mass with Latin Rite Catholics, he himself remains silent when they are saying the filioque. What I have read about the subject was that one of the conditions for coming into communion with Rome was to accept that filioque is not a false or heretical doctrine--but the Eastern Rite churches are not required to say it.

                            Other than that the biggest difference in the Liturgy itself (between their parish's practice and mine) was that they leave out the litany of the catechumens and dismissal of catechumens when they do not have actual catechumens in their own parish. The Orthodox parish I attend always includes these parts whether or not our parish has catechumens at the time, but I'm not familiar enough with Orthodoxy as a whole to know whether there are some Orthodox parishes that leave it out (i.e. whether it's a local difference even among Orthodox) or whether all EO always leave it in and omitting it is a Byzantine Catholic thing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sparrow View Post
                              They did commemorate the Pope; they did not include the filioque. Moreover, when I spoke with their pastor, he specifically told me that even when he is celebrating the Mass with Latin Rite Catholics, he himself remains silent when they are saying the filioque. What I have read about the subject was that one of the conditions for coming into communion with Rome was to accept that filioque is not a false or heretical doctrine--but the Eastern Rite churches are not required to say it.

                              Other than that the biggest difference in the Liturgy itself (between their parish's practice and mine) was that they leave out the litany of the catechumens and dismissal of catechumens when they do not have actual catechumens in their own parish. The Orthodox parish I attend always includes these parts whether or not our parish has catechumens at the time, but I'm not familiar enough with Orthodoxy as a whole to know whether there are some Orthodox parishes that leave it out (i.e. whether it's a local difference even among Orthodox) or whether all EO always leave it in and omitting it is a Byzantine Catholic thing.
                              Our diocese omits the litany/dismissal of the catechumens. We also do not have a little litany between antiphons. My parish always sings the Beatitudes after the Hymn to the Incarnation, but omits the stichera associated with them.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X