Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Traditionalists preparing for Catholic conversion
Church of England Newspaper ^ | 4 December 2003 | staff writer

Posted on 12/04/2003 8:54:37 AM PST by ahadams2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last
To: ahadams2; Hermann the Cherusker
I saw this on EWTN's Q&A forum:

Comment on the Anglican "Rite" Question from Benny Valero on 11-23-2003:

I read on the website of the Anglican Use parishes that their liturgy is a "variant of the Roman Rite". Thus I suppose that there isn't an Anglican rite within the Catholic Church.

However it should be recognized that Anglican use liturgies conserve much of the ritual of the Book of Common prayer (BCP).I had an Episcopalian upbringing. The BCP I remember from childhood had a majesty that the English translation of the Roman Rite Mass doesn't have. I appreciate why ex-Episcopalians petitioned the Pope to be allowed to keep the BCP. I attended an Anglican use liturgy once when I was in Texas and I was in awe. This emotion was similar to what I felt when I first attended an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy in Australia.

There is a possibility that with the rapid departure of some churches of the Anglican communion from authentic Catholic teaching on morality, a huge part of the communion may ask our Pope to join the Catholic Church. They may ask him to keep the BCP.

However the root of the BCP rite is actually the Sarum Rite. This is the Mass that Sts Thomas More and John Fisher as well as Henry VIII knew.

If whole Anglican provinces do petition our Pope to join the Catholic Church, will this be analogous to what the Eastern Catholic Churches did? If so this is precedent for Anglicans to be a sui iuris church.

Answer by Anthony Dragani on 12-05-2003:

Benny,

I just read today (from a very reliable source) that an entire Episcopalian diocese has asked to be received into the Catholic Church. Apparently Vatican officials are discussing the matter. We will see what (if anything) materializes from this. If so, it may be an appropriate opportunity to establish a sui iurus Anglican Catholic Church. But as I said before, there are a lot of issues that need to be ironed out.

I really don't know how accurate it is to describe the Anglican liturgy as a "variant of the Roman Rite." It is considerably different... to the extent that it is more than a variant, in my opinion. Certainly numerous Roman elements are present in it, and its overall character has a lot in common with the Roman Mass, but there are also other elements from varying sources. I've attended an Anglican High Mass in the past, and it was stunningly beautiful.

God bless, Anthony

81 posted on 12/05/2003 1:45:26 PM PST by Pyro7480 ("We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: trad_anglican
I don't believe that the Anglican Province of America is in communion with Canterbury. 80 posted on 12/05/2003 1:38:17 PM PST by trad_anglican

Ahh, yes... http://anglicansonline.org/ indicates that the APA is not in communion with Canterbury... the APA, the REC, and the Anglican Independent Communion are involved in a three-way merger of "non-communicant" anglican churches.

My mistake... Well, maybe some other time, then. ;-)

82 posted on 12/05/2003 1:49:31 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Well, maybe some other time, then

It's still nice to see Anglicans coming together for a change!

83 posted on 12/05/2003 1:50:50 PM PST by trad_anglican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: trad_anglican
I completely agree.
84 posted on 12/05/2003 1:56:55 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I really don't know how accurate it is to describe the Anglican liturgy as a "variant of the Roman Rite."

The Anglican use liturgy is based mostly on the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer which follows very closely the Edwardian Prayer Books, which are based on the Sarum (or Salisbury) rite used in England prior to the reformation. The Sarum rite was the most popular of 5 rites in use in pre-reformation England.

The main difference between the Anglican use liturgy and the 1928 BCP is the consecration (or eucharistic) prayer, which I believe is taken from the novus ordo. I don't think it's very accurate to describe it as a variant of the Roman Rite.

85 posted on 12/05/2003 1:58:37 PM PST by trad_anglican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: trad_anglican; OrthodoxPresbyterian
trad_anglican is right - from what I've seen, the REC-APA thing has been in the works for quite a while so if anything it was God's timing that allowed it to occur simultaneously with the various other ongoing theological gyrations.

On the other hand the new Anglican Federation announced here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1034753/posts
includes the REC, APA and a whole lot more - it would appear that the polarization caused by frank & vicki's antics has actually brought about a major cooperative effort on the parts of a significant number of the various conservative Anglican groups in North America.
86 posted on 12/05/2003 3:41:07 PM PST by ahadams2 (Anglican Freeper Resource Page: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2
On the other hand the new Anglican Federation announced here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1034753/posts includes the REC, APA and a whole lot more - it would appear that the polarization caused by frank & vicki's antics has actually brought about a major cooperative effort on the parts of a significant number of the various conservative Anglican groups in North America.

Cool. Very Cool.

87 posted on 12/05/2003 3:44:03 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
New Advent
 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Library   Bible   Shop 
  Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > S > Roman Catholic
 A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z 
 

Roman Catholic

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic". "The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed" (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766). Of the illustrative quotations which follow, the earliest in date is one of 1605 from the "Europae Speculum" of Edwin Sandys: "Some Roman Catholiques will not say grace when a Protestant is present"; while a passage from Day's "Festivals" of 1615, contrasts "Roman Catholiques" with "good, true Catholiques indeed".

Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested. When about the year 1580 certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the "Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church". This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Percival Wiburn, who in his "Checke or Reproofe of M. Howlet" uses the term "Roman Catholic" repeatedly. For example he speaks of "you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration" (p. 140) and of the "parlous dilemma or streight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into" (p. 44). Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called "A Deliberat Answere", printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church. Thus Philpot represents himself as answering his Catholic examiner: "I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same" (Philpot, "Works", Parker Soc., p. 132). It would be easy to quote many similar passages. The term "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" undoubtedly originated with the Protestant divines who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic to their opponents without qualification. Indeed the writer Crowley, just mentioned, does not hesitate throughout a long tract to use the term "Protestant Catholics" the name which he applies to his antagonists. Thus he says "We Protestant Catholiques are not departed from the true Catholique religion" (p. 33) and he refers more than once to "Our Protestant Catholique Church," (p. 74)

On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified name Catholic. Father Southwell's "Humble Supplication to her Majesty" (1591), though criticized by some as over-adulatory in tone, always uses the simple word. What is more surprising, the same may be said of various addresses to the Crown drafted under the inspiration of the "Appellant" clergy, who were suspected by their opponents of subservience to the government and of minimizing in matters of dogma. This feature is very conspicuous, to take a single example, in "the Protestation of allegiance" drawn up by thirteen missioners, 31 Jan., 1603, in which they renounce all thought of "restoring the Catholic religion by the sword", profess their willingness "to persuade all Catholics to do the same" and conclude by declaring themselves ready on the one hand "to spend their blood in the defence of her Majesty" but on the other "rather to lose their lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's Catholic Church" (Tierney-Dodd, III, p. cxc). We find similar language used in Ireland in the negotiations carried on by Tyrone in behalf of his Catholic countrymen. Certain apparent exceptions to this uniformity of practice can be readily explained. To begin with we do find that Catholics not unfrequently use the inverted form of the name "Roman Catholic" and speak of the "Catholic Roman faith" or religion. An early example is to be found in a little controversial tract of 1575 called "a Notable Discourse" where we read for example that the heretics of old "preached that the Pope was Antichriste, shewing themselves verye eloquent in detracting and rayling against the Catholique Romane Church" (p. 64). But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages "Ecclesia Catholica Romana," or in French "l'Eglise catholique romaine". It was felt that this inverted form contained no hint of the Protestant contention that the old religion was a spurious variety of true Catholicism or at best the Roman species of a wider genus. Again, when we find Father Persons (e.g. in his "Three Conversions," III, 408) using the term "Roman Catholic", the context shows that he is only adopting the name for the moment as conveniently embodying the contention of his adversaries.

Once more in a very striking passage in the examination of one James Clayton in 1591 (see Cal. State Papers, Dom. Eliz., add., vol. XXXII, p. 322) we read that the deponent "was persuaded to conforme himself to the Romaine Catholique faith." But there is nothing to show that these were the actual words of the recusant himself, or that, if they were, they were not simply dictated by a desire to conciliate his examiners. The "Oxford Dictionary" is probably right in assigning the recognition of "Roman Catholic" as the official style of the adherents of the Papacy in England to the negotiations for the Spanish Match (1618-24). In the various treaties etc., drafted in connection with this proposal, the religion of the Spanish princess is almost always spoken of as "Roman Catholic". Indeed in some few instances the word Catholic alone is used. This feature does not seem to occur in any of the negotiations of earlier date which touched upon religion, e.g. those connected with the proposed d'Alencon marriage in Elizabeth's reign, while in Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., before the Spanish match, Catholics are simply described as Papists or Recusants, and their religion as popish, Romanish, or Romanist. Indeed long after this period, the use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland" in 1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick clergy of Ireland". The same Practice seems to have obtained in Maryland; see or example the Consultation entitled "Objections answered touching Maryland", drafted by Father R Blount, S.J., in 1632 (B. Johnston, "Foundation of Maryland , etc., 1883, 29), and wills proved 22 Sep., 1630, and 19 Dec., 1659, etc., (in Baldwin, "Maryland Cat. of Wills", 19 vols., vol. i. Naturally the wish to conciliate hostile opinion only grew greater as Catholic Emancipation became a question of practical politics, and by that time it would appear that many Catholics themselves used the qualified form not only when addressing the outside public but in their domestic discussions. A short-lived association, organized in 1794 with the fullest approval of the vicars Apostolic, to counteract the unorthodox tendencies of the Cisalpine Club, was officially known as the "Roman Catholic Meeting" (Ward, "Dawn of Cath,. Revival in England", II, 65). So, too, a meeting of the Irish bishops under the presidency of Dr. Troy at Dublin in 1821 passed resolutions approving of an Emancipation Bill then before a Parliament, in which they uniformly referred to members of their own communion as "Roman Catholics". Further, such a representative Catholic as Charles Butler in his "Historical Memoirs" (see e.g. vol. IV, 1821, pp. 185, 199, 225, etc.,) frequently uses the term "roman-catholic" [sic] and seems to find this expression as natural as the unqualified form.

With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converts, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however, would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during the archiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be "the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter."

It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the object of adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman" (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as "the Orthodox Church", not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of "the Reformation" because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals. The dog-in-the manger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome, was conspicuously brought out in the course of a correspondence on this subject in the London "Saturday Review" (Dec., 1908 to March, 1909) arising out of a review of some of the earlier volumes of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.

The historical facts summarized in this article are given in an extended form in a paper contributed by the present writer to The Month (Sept. 1911). See also "The Tablet" (14 Sept., 1901), 402, and Snead-Cox, Life of Cardinal Vaughan, cited above.

HERBERT THURSTON
Transcribed by Nicolette Ormsbee

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

 
Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. All rights reserved. Updated 15 September 2003.
Praise Jesus Christ in His Angels and in His Saints.
New Advent is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
 

88 posted on 12/05/2003 5:25:43 PM PST by Notwithstanding (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Copyright © 1912)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
New Advent
 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Library   Bible   Shop 
  Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > S > The Roman Rite
 A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z 
 

The Roman Rite

(Ritus romanus).

The Roman Rite is the manner of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, administering Sacraments, reciting the Divine Office, and performing other ecclesiastical functions (blessings, all kinds of Sacramentals, etc.) as used in the city and Diocese of Rome. The Roman Rite is the most wide-spread in Christendom. That it has advantages possessed by no other -- the most archaic antiquity, unequalled dignity, beauty, and the practical convenience of being comparatively short in its services -- will not be denied by any one who knows it and the other ancient liturgies. But it was not the consideration of these advantages that led to its extensive use; it was the exalted position of the see that used it. The Roman Rite was adopted throughout the West because the local bishops, sometimes kings or emperors, felt that they could not do better than use the rite of the chief bishop of all, at Rome. And this imitation of Roman liturgical practice brought about in the West the application of the principle (long admitted in the East) that rite should follow patriarchate. Apart from his universal primacy, the pope had always been unquestioned Patriarch of the West. It was then the right and normal thing that the West should use his liturgy. The irregular and anomalous incident of liturgical history is not that the Roman Rite has been used, practically exclusively, in the West since about the tenth or eleventh century, but that before that there were other rites in the pope's patriarchate. Not the disappearance but the existence and long toleration of the Gallican and Spanish rites is the difficulty (see RITES). Like all others, the Roman Rite bears clear marks of its local origin. Wherever it may be used, it is still Roman in the local sense, obviously composed for use in Rome. Our Missal marks the Roman stations, contains the Roman saints in the Canon (See CANON OF THE MASS), honours with special solemnity the Roman martyrs and popes. Our feasts are constantly anniversaries of local Roman events, of the dedication of Roman churches (All Saints, St. Michael, S. Maria ad Nives, etc.). The Collect for Sts. Peter and Paul (29 June) supposes that it is said at Rome (the Church which "received the beginnings of her Faith" from these saints is that of Rome), and so on continually. This is quite right and fitting; it agrees with all liturgical history. No rite has ever been composed consciously for general use. In the East there are still stronger examples of the same thing. The Orthodox all over the world use a rite full of local allusions to the city of Constantinople.

The Roman Rite evolved out of the (presumed) universal, but quite fluid, rite of the first three centuries during the (liturgically) almost unknown time from the fourth to the sixth. In the sixth we have it fully developed in the Leonine, later in the Gelasian, Sacramentaries. How and exactly when the specifically Roman qualities were formed during that time will, no doubt, always be a matter of conjecture (see LITURGY; MASS, LITURGY OF THE). At first its use was very restrained. It was followed only in the Roman province. North Italy was Gallican, the South, Byzantine, but Africa was always closely akin to Rome liturgically. From the eighth century gradually the Roman usage began its career of conquest in the West. By the twelfth century at latest it was used wherever Latin obtained, having displaced all others except at Milan and in retreating parts of Spain. That has been its position ever since. As the rite of the Latin Church it is used exclusively in the Latin Patriarchate, with three small exceptions at Milan, Toledo, and in the still Byzantine churches of Southern Italy, Sicily, and Corsica. During the Middle Ages it developed into a vast number of derived rites, differing from the pure form only in unimportant details and in exuberant additions. Most of these were abolished by the decree of Pius V in 1570 (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE). Meanwhile, the Roman Rite had itself been affected by, and had received additions from, the Gallican and Spanish uses it displaced. The Roman Rite is now used by every one who is subject to the pope's patriarchal jurisdiction (with the three exceptions noted above); that is, it is used in Western Europe, including Poland, in all countries colonized from Western Europe: America, Australia, etc., by Western (Latin) missionaries all over the world, including the Eastern lands where other Catholic rites also obtain. No one may change his rite without a legal authorization, which is not easily obtained. So the Western priest in Syria, Egypt, and so on uses his own Roman Rite, just as at home. On the same principle Catholics of Eastern rites in Western Europe, America, etc., keep their rites; so that rites now cross each other wherever such people live together. The language of the Roman Rite is Latin everywhere except that in some churches along the Western Adriatic coast it is said in Slavonic and on rare occasions in Greek at Rome (see RITES). In derived forms the Roman Rite is used in some few dioceses (Lyons) and by several religious orders (Benedictines, Carthusians, Carmelites, Dominicans). In these their fundamentally Roman character is expressed by a compound name. They are the "Ritus Romano-Lugdunensis", "Romano-monasticus", and so on.

For further details and bibliography see BREVIARY; CANON OF THE MASS; LITURGY; MASS, LITURGY OF THE; RITES.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Transcribed by Catharine Lamb
Dedicated to the memory of my mother, Ruth F. Hansen

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

 
Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. All rights reserved. Updated 15 September 2003.
Praise Jesus Christ in His Angels and in His Saints.
New Advent is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
 

89 posted on 12/05/2003 5:28:29 PM PST by Notwithstanding (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Copyright © 1912)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
New Advent
 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Library   Bible   Shop 
  Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > L > Latin Church
 A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z 
 

Latin Church

The word Church (ecclesia) is used in its first sense to express whole congregation of Catholic Christendom united in one Faith, obeying one hierarchy in communion with itself. This is the sense of Matthew 16:18; 18:17; Ephesians 5:25-27, and so on. It is in this sense that we speak of the Church without qualification, say that Christ founded one Church, and so on. But the word is constantly applied to the various individual elements of this union. As the whole is the Church, the universal Church, so are its parts the Churches of Corinth, Asia, France, etc. This second use of the word also occurs in the New Testament (Acts 15:41; II Corinthians 11:28; Apocalypse 1:4, 11, etc). Any portion then that forms a subsidiary unity in itself may be called a local Church. The smallest such portion is a diocese -- thus we speak of the Church of Paris, of Milan, of Seville. Above this again we group metropolitical provinces and national portions together as units, and speak of the Church of Africa, of Gaul, of Spain. The expression "Church of Rome", it should be noted, though commonly applied by non-Catholics to the whole Catholic body, can only be used correctly in this secondary sense for the local diocese (or possibly the province) of Rome, mother and mistress of all Churches. A German Catholic is not, strictly speaking, a member of the Church of Rome but of the Church of Cologne, or Munich-Freising, or whatever it may be, in union with and under the obedience of the Roman Church (although, no doubt, by a further extension Roman Church may be used as equivalent to Latin Church for the patriarchate).

The word is also used very commonly for the still greater portions that are united under their patriarchs, that is for the patriarchates. It is in this sense that we speak of the Latin Church. The Latin Church is simply that vast portion of the Catholic body which obeys the Latin patriarch, which submits to the pope, not only in papal, but also in patriarchal matters. It is thus distinguished from the Eastern Churches (whether Catholic or Schismatic), which represent the other four patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and any fractions broken away from them. The Latin patriarchate has always been considerably the largest. Now, since the great part of Eastern Christendom has fallen into schism, since vast new lands have been colonized, conquered or (partly) converted by Latins (America, Australia, etc.), the Latin part of the Catholic Church looms so enormous as compared with the others that many people think that everyone in communion with the pope is a Latin. This error is fostered by the Anglican branch theory, which supposes the situation to be that the Eastern Church is no longer in communion with Rome. Against this we must always remember, and when necessary point out, that the constitution of the Catholic Church is still essentially what it was at the time of the Second Council of Nicaea (787; see also canon 21 of Constantinople IV in 869 in the "Corp. Jur. can.", dist. xxii, c. vii). Namely, there are still the five patriarchates, of which the Latin Church is only one, although so great a part of the Eastern ones have fallen away. The Eastern Churches, small as they are, still represent the old Catholic Christendom of the East in union with the pope, obeying him as pope, though not as their patriarch. All Latins are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Latins. The old frontier passed just east of Macedonia, Greece (Illyricum was afterwards claimed by Constantinople), and Crete, and cut Africa west of Egypt. All to the west of this was the Latin Church.

We must now add to Western Europe all the new lands occupied by Western Europeans, to make up the present enormous Latin patriarchate. Throughout this vast territory the pope reigns as patriarch, as well as by his supreme position as visible head of the whole Church with the exception of very small remnants of other uses (Milan, Toledo, and the Byzantines of Southern Italy), his Roman Rite is used throughout according to the general principle that rite follows the patriarchate, that local bishops use the rite of their patriarch. The medieval Western uses (Paris, Sarum and so on), of which people at one time made much for controversial purposes, were in no sense really independent rites, as are the remnants of the Gallican use at Milan and Toledo. These were only the Roman Rite with very slight local modifications. From this conception we see that the practical disappearance of the Gallican Rite, however much the archeologist may regret it, is justified by the general principle that rite should follow patriarchate. Uniformity of rite throughout Christendom has never been an ideal among Catholics; but uniformity in each patriarchate is. We see also that the suggestion, occasionally made by advanced Anglicans, of a "Uniate" Anglican Church with its own rite and to some extent its own laws (for instance with a married clergy) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law. England is most certainly part of the Latin patriarchate. When Anglicans return to the old Faith they find themselves subject to the pope, not only as head of the Church but also as patriarch. As part of the Latin Church England must submit to Latin canon law and the Roman Rite just as much as France or Germany. The comparison with Eastern Rite Catholics rests on a misconception of the whole situation. It follows also that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate. A Eastern Rite Catholic on the other hand is a Byzantine, or Armenian, or Maronite Catholic. But a person who is in schism with the Holy See is not, of course, admitted by Catholics to be any kind of Catholic at all.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX
Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

 
Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. All rights reserved. Updated 15 September 2003.
Praise Jesus Christ in His Angels and in His Saints.
New Advent is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
 

90 posted on 12/05/2003 5:34:48 PM PST by Notwithstanding (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Copyright © 1912)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Profession of Faith for the Waldensians, AD 1208)
91 posted on 12/06/2003 7:05:06 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Where does it say we are brought to Christ by Mary? Where does it say Mary was assumed into heaven? Where in Scripture is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

The dogma of the Assumption came out of an ancient legend. There are no known references to it prior to the 4th century. The Immaculate Conception evolved significantly over time. The question cropped up in the Western Church during the medieval scholastic movement. Anslem, Dominic, Aquinas, Bernard, etc all taught things different that the present version. The Orthodox rejected the doctrine. The Council of Trent opted not to deal with it. The Immaculate Conception and Filioque Clause are the two doctrinal difference between the Eastern Rite/Byzantine Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.
92 posted on 12/08/2003 4:35:10 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
Now you're changing the subject... I did not claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption was biblical (at least not without getting into some esoterism). I only said that they were much older than the 18th century.

And yes, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception did get refined over time... as did all doctrines.

Not that recency of a doctrine nullifies it, nor does the fact that it is not explicitly stated; Sola Scriptura is not stated in the bible, nor was it ever held until Luther.
93 posted on 12/08/2003 7:10:33 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson