Three western Churches?


#1

I have came across a website that states there are three western Churches under the Latin Rite. Is this correct? Here is the link to the chart.

credo.stormloader.com/ritesofc.htm


#2

According to the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, any body of Christians with a valid bishop and sacraments is a Church proper. So it’s correct. I don’t think the website is denying that those Churches are part of the one Catholic Church (i.e., the body of Christ).

Blessings,
Marduk


#3

I've heard of these other two, but they are Roman Catholics the same as us. Their Masses were supposed to have been handed down by great saints so they were allowed to keep them after the Council of Trent made what we call the "Extraordinary Form" the standard liturgy in the West.


#4

I understand they are liturgies of the RCC, but the fact they are under " Church" is confusing. Plus on an EWTN Link ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm , it states next to the Roman Bullet that it is the majority of Latin Catholics and Catholics in general. This is very confusing the fact it states " the majority of Latin Catholics " so are there really other Latin Churches?


#5

[quote="BVMFatima, post:4, topic:308838"]
I understand they are liturgies of the RCC, but the fact they are under " Church" is confusing. Plus on an EWTN Link ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm , it states next to the Roman Bullet that it is the majority of Latin Catholics and Catholics in general. This is very confusing the fact it states " the majority of Latin Catholics " so are there really other Latin Churches?

[/quote]

No, there is just one: the Roman Catholic Church, in which there are multiple rites.


#6

I know this is the Traditional Forum, so I hope I don't get into trouble for asking this here, but are Traditional Catholics normally unaware that each body of Christians with a valid bishop and Sacraments is considered a "church" proper? I don't understand how one can be confused about calling a local church a "Church." Even at the time of Vatican 1, the Eastern Orthodox were referred to as a "Church."

Blessings,
Marduk


#7

That website is probably well-intentioned but it seems to me to be a little "off" on several things.

The first is that the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan (and they neglected to mention the Lyonais) are considered Rites within the Latin Church and not Churches sui juris (that is, having their own law, as do the Eastern & Oriental Churches noted later in the article) in and of themselves. IOW, they are Rites within the Latin Church (as is the Roman Rite) and not separate from it. Those 4 Rites had remained in continuous use for at least 200 years prior to Trent (actually much much longer than that), and were not suppressed.

The second point I'll mention is regarding the list of Rites proper to Religious Orders. First, there is not, and never has been, either a Benedictine Rite per-se or a Franciscan Rite per-se. Whereas both vary slightly in certain ways from the Roman, (mainly in the Office and Calendar) they would be best classified as usages. The same is, IIRC, true of the Servites. The remainder, however, are **considered **Rites, and also survived Trent. (The Praemonstratentian Rite was abandoned by decision of the General Chapter shortly after Trent, although certain elements of it were preserved).

The third point concerns the footnote. Both the Gallican (except for the Lyonais variant which survived until the Novus Ordo and is, I believe, experiencing a revival of sorts under the terms of Summorum Pontificum) and the Sarum (which is not the same as the Celtic) Rites had fallen into disuse prior to Trent (the Gallican and Celtic long before, while the Sarum was dealt its death blow by Cranmer and his Protestants) and were summarily suppressed since they did not meet the 200 year continuous-use minimum.


#8

Hey...Great point!:D

[quote="malphono, post:7, topic:308838"]
That website is probably well-intentioned but it seems to me to be a little "off" on several things.

The first is that the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan (and they neglected to mention the Lyonais) are considered Rites within the Latin Church and not Churches sui juris (that is, having their own law, as do the Eastern & Oriental Churches noted later in the article) in and of themselves. IOW, they are Rites within the Latin Church (as is the Roman Rite) and not separate from it. Those 4 Rites had remained in continuous use for at least 200 years prior to Trent (actually much much longer than that), and were not suppressed.

The second point I'll mention is regarding the list of Rites proper to Religious Orders. First, there is not, and never has been, either a Benedictine Rite per-se or a Franciscan Rite per-se. Whereas both vary slightly in certain ways from the Roman, (mainly in the Office and Calendar) they would be best classified as usages. The same is, IIRC, true of the Servites. The remainder, however, are **considered **Rites, and also survived Trent. (The Praemonstratentian Rite was abandoned by decision of the General Chapter shortly after Trent, although certain elements of it were preserved).

The third point concerns the footnote. Both the Gallican (except for the Lyonais variant which survived until the Novus Ordo and is, I believe, experiencing a revival of sorts under the terms of Summorum Pontificum) and the Sarum (which is not the same as the Celtic) Rites had fallen into disuse prior to Trent (the Gallican and Celtic long before, while the Sarum was dealt its death blow by Cranmer and his Protestants) and were summarily suppressed since they did not meet the 200 year continuous-use minimum.

[/quote]


#9

There is only one Western Church, no matter where you are in the world.


#10

[quote="BVMFatima, post:1, topic:308838"]
I have came across a website that states there are three western Churches under the Latin Rite. Is this correct? Here is the link to the chart.

credo.stormloader.com/ritesofc.htm

[/quote]

Those are rites, not churches. There's only one western church in the Catholic Church, and that's the Latin Church. The Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, and Bragan Rite are different rites within the Latin tradition.

[quote="BVMFatima, post:4, topic:308838"]
I understand they are liturgies of the RCC, but the fact they are under " Church" is confusing.

[/quote]

Yes, that website is wrong. They are not churches. It also lists them under "Latin Rite," which is wrong; the Latin Church has all those rites. Basically, it's switching "rite" and "church" around.

Also, it says the rites of the religious orders are not true rites but rather variations of the Roman Rite. That's not true; they are considered their own rites (well, some are).

[quote="BVMFatima, post:4, topic:308838"]
Plus on an EWTN Link ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm , it states next to the Roman Bullet that it is the majority of Latin Catholics and Catholics in general. This is very confusing the fact it states " the majority of Latin Catholics " so are there really other Latin Churches?

[/quote]

No. That EWTN list is a bit confusing, though. It means that the majority of Latin Catholics belong to dioceses that use the Roman Rite. Latin Catholics who belong to dioceses that use other non-Roman Latin rites are a statistically tiny minority.

Of course, as Marduk points out, every diocese is technically a distinct church. But there is only one western sui iuris church: the Latin Church.


#11

[quote="Fone_Bone_2001, post:10, topic:308838"]
Those are rites, not churches. There's only one western church in the Catholic Church, and that's the Latin Church. The Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, and Bragan Rite are different rites within the Latin tradition.

Yes, that website is wrong. They are not churches. It also lists them under "Latin Rite," which is wrong; the Latin Church has all those rites. Basically, it's switching "rite" and "church" around.

Also, it says the rites of the religious orders are not true rites but rather variations of the Roman Rite. That's not true; they are considered their own rites (well, some are).

No. That EWTN list is a bit confusing, though. It means that the majority of Latin Catholics belong to dioceses that use the Roman Rite. Latin Catholics who belong to dioceses that use other non-Roman Latin rites are a statistically tiny minority.

Of course, as Marduk points out, every diocese is technically a distinct church. But there is only one western sui iuris church: the Latin Church.

[/quote]

This for this answer it really helped. So the Latins who celebrate the Roman Rite are Roman Catholics. Does this mean Catholics who celebrate other Latin Rites are not?


#12

I also talked to many priests about the term Roman Catholic, and I was told we are called Western Catholics because we are the Catholics of the West, the reason we are called Roman is because we are from Rome ( the Church was established in Rome from Peter ) and we are called Latin due to the use of the Latin Rites. Is this correct? " Roman Catholic " in the Protestant sense is used to mean the whole church which is incorrect of them, so this does not need to be mentioned :)


#13

[quote="BVMFatima, post:12, topic:308838"]
I also talked to many priests about the term Roman Catholic, and I was told we are called Western Catholics because we are the Catholics of the West, the reason we are called Roman is because we are from Rome ( the Church was established in Rome from Peter ) and we are called Latin due to the use of the Latin Rites. Is this correct? " Roman Catholic " in the Protestant sense is used to mean the whole church which is incorrect of them, so this does not need to be mentioned :)

[/quote]

this


#14

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:9, topic:308838"]
There is only one Western Church, no matter where you are in the world.

[/quote]

Thank you for confirming what the Church teaches. :thumbsup:


#15

Dear brother YoungTradCath,

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:9, topic:308838"]
There is only one Western Church, no matter where you are in the world.

[/quote]

As you noticed, brother ConstantineTG gave a thumbs up to your statement. In another thread, he is claiming that the Western Catholic Church teaches that - let's say - the Melkite Catholic Church is not a true Church in its full sense according to its teaching, but is merely "part of" the Catholic Church. A lot of Latin Catholics refer to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches merely as "Rites," and CTG claims that is because the Western Catholic Church teaches (not merely that there are Latin Catholics who believe this way, but that the Latin Catholic Church actually teaches) that Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches are not true Churches, but merely "Rites." Would you agree with brother ConstantineTG that the Latin Catholic Church teaches this?

Blessings,
Marduk


#16

I'm going to try and stay out of this latest ecclesiolgical spat with ConstantineTG if I can, except to say that if he is still Catholic then I assume he accepts whatever he believes the Church teaches on the subject.

On the immediate topic, just to confirm what others said the Ambrosian Rite and Mosarabic Rite are simply simply different liturgical rites, distinct from the Roman Rite but still practiced within the single Latin rite Church.


#17

[quote="Aelred_Minor, post:16, topic:308838"]
I'm going to try and stay out of this latest ecclesiolgical spat with ConstantineTG if I can, except to say that if he is still Catholic then I assume he accepts whatever he believes the Church teaches on the subject.

On the immediate topic, just to confirm what others said the Ambrosian Rite and Mosarabic Rite are simply simply different liturgical rites, distinct from the Roman Rite but still practiced within the single Latin rite Church.

[/quote]

What did I say? What did I do? I just simply complemented one of the posters here I have much respect for despite a lot of differing of opinions, and suddenly others think my post is about them. :shrug:

Anyway, so you are confirming that there is only one Latin Church that is headed by the Pope, and that every diocese is a part of the Church and not an independent (or autocephalous if you prefer that term) Church that is in communion with Rome?


#18

I don’t know what you mean about others thinking your post is about them. Naturally someone who had not yet posted on this thread would not think that anything was about them. Anyway I only defended you, saying that I assume if you are still Catholic (your current statement for “religion” makes that unclear) then you accept whatever you believe the Church has taught on the subject. Of course I know such a statement got me into a debate with you in the past and I might have guessed it would do so again, but I’ll keep making the assumption for any Catholic until I see clear evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, in one sense each diocese is its own local church, with the bishop as its head by the authority of Jesus Christ the High Priest. In another sense all Catholics, East and West, are a single Church with the Vicar of Christ as its visible head, under the true Head which is Christ. In still another sense, in between the other two at least in terms of the size of the groups though probably less fundamental to the supernatural structure of the Church than either of the others, there are the various “sui iuris” Churches, including the Latin rite Church and the various Eastern Catholic Churches. I admit I am a little confused when bodies are listed as such Churches that do not currently have their own bishops, but certainly the Latin rite Church and the majority of Eastern Catholic Churches qualify, and I assume there is some piece of the puzzle I am missing that would explain why a few bishopless bodies are likewise listed among the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Still other divisions of the Church can be brought up. For example, taking a still wider view of the Church we can divide her into the Church Militant here on earth, the Church Suffering in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in Heaven.

It’s important that we do not emphasize any one of these uses of the word “church” to the point that we deny any of the others.

Regarding the term “Latin Church” in particular, this is synonymous with “Latin rite Church” but not with “Roman Church” or “Roman Catholic Church.” The former two terms do not include Eastern Catholics, while the latter two include them and all Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome, at least the way the terms are most commonly used (in the real world, as opposed to on these forums).


#19

a very good question/statement.
is the Maronite Church a Rite of the Roman Catholic Church or a Church of it’s own?
(and part of the Catholic Church)?
the answer is yes and no and a thread on it’s own lol.


#20

[quote="shreek, post:19, topic:308838"]
a very good question/statement.
is the Maronite Church a Rite of the Roman Catholic Church or a Church of it's own?
(and part of the Catholic Church)?
the answer is yes and no and a thread on it's own lol.

[/quote]

For better or worse, there's no question about the parenthetical part, but ... for the rest, oh yeah, that could easily be a tread unto itself in the EC forum. ;) :eek:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.