Regardless of the religious theme, this is not really a debate so much as a question of fact, so I am sending it over to General Questions.
[ /Moderating ]
Not exactly. The Roman Rite is the biggest of the Latin Rites, but it’s a distinct right within the Latin Rites.
There are six of the Latin Rites currently in use; the Roman Rite (the biggest), the Ambrosian Rite (used in Milan), the Rite of Braga (used in Braga, Portugal), the Mozarabic Rite (used in Toledo), the Carthusian Rite (used by Carhusians), and the Benedictine Rite (used by Benedictines). There are also a bunch of old rites not used anymore.
“Catholic” as has been pointed out, means “universal”.
The term predates the Nicene creeds. From memory, it goes back to at least the second century and it was originally the opposite of something like “schismatic”. A particular local church was part of the universal or Catholic church if it agreed in doctrine and practice with all the other local churches and was in a friendly relationship with them. If that wasn’t the case, then the offending church was in schism. At this time “Catholic” was mostly used in distinction not to “Protestant” or to “Orthodox” but to “Arian”. Or you could name any other of the various heresies current in this period, if you had a local church (as opposed to individual Christians) which adopted that heresy.
Obviously, who has the True Teaching or the True Practice and who has the Heresy or the False Practice is a point about which Christians could and did disagree. It wasn’t uncommon for each side in a split to claim that it remained within the Catholic church while those other people over there had left it, or at least were in grave danger of severing themselves from it.
I don’t think we get to the point of having the concept of a “Catholic church” as distinct from another church until after the East/West schism - and, even then, the terminology would be used only on the Western side. In the West, the Catholic church was opposed to the Orthodox Church, and the implication of the West’s claiming the term “Catholic” for its church was the Orthodox were in schism. Precisely for that reason, the Orthodox would have been slow to accept the designation “Catholic church” for Western Christians, instead referring to “the Latins”.
“Roman Catholic” I think has a similar genesis; it was coined by (I think) Anglicans to describe the Pope-headed church on the basis that Anglicans accepted the catholicity of that church, but also insisted on the catholicity of their own church. For a long time Roman Catholics would have resented the designation and avoided it on the basis that it might imply an endorsement of Anglican claims to catholicity, but nowadays (Roman) Catholic ecc;esiolgy emphasises rather than denies elements of catholicity in other churches, so they find the term “Roman Catholic” for themselves a much more cromulent one than they used to.
Ah. True. Hence the Roman Missal, of course. On the other hand, (although it may have occurred and I missed it), I don’t recall any Carthusians or Milanese sending separate delegates to councils or synods as Carthusians or Ambrosians.
Well, the Melkite rite (for example) is used by the Melkite church, which is a church in the full sense - a eucharistic community presided over by a hierarchy of bishops. And it’s a Roman Catholic church, in the sense that it’s part of the universal (or catholic) church, and its participation in that church is expressed in a relationship of eucharistic communion with the Bishop of Rome.
So, Christians who use the Melkite rite are represented at Roman Catholic church councils because the bishops of that church, being Roman Catholic bishops, are summoned to the Council, and they come.
By contrast, the Carthusian rite (for example) is not used by any Carthusian church. There is no Carthusian church. The Carthusian rite is used by monks of the Carthusian order, but that’s not a church, and it doesn’t have presiding bishops who get summoned to church Councils. (There may be individual Carthusian monks who are ordained as bishops of Latin dioceses and who get summoned to councils, but that’s not the same thing.)
In short, there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between the various liturgical rites used by Roman Catholics and the various churches into which Roman Catholics are grouped. But there’s a large degree of correspondence, so confusion between the two concepts can easily arise. Basically, in the East, each of the Eastern rites corresponds to a distinct church, whereas in the West there is just one church - the Western or Latin church - in which all the Latin rites are celebrated.
I’ll just add that the Eastern Catholic churches, although doctrinally united with the Roman Catholic Church, are in their practices and liturgies more similar to the Eastern Orthodox churches. If you sat in on a service in an Eastern Catholic church, you’d be more likely to mistake it for Orthodox than for Roman Catholic.
OP: ferkockte goyim I understand, but what’s a wahoonie?
Flora and fauna of the Discworld: Wahoonie
“Wahoonie shaped” is a phrase I picked up from Nanny Ogg, though I can imagine Sgt Colon or Corporal Nobbs using it also. From the context, I’ve taken it to mean “things didn’t go quite as well as planned.” Like the Broncos’ plan to beat the Seahawks in the recent Super Bowl. Hitler’s plan to take Stalingrad went wahoonie shaped.
And they are all going to hell!
There may be other languages out there where it’s done, but the only one where I consistently hear people use the “Roman” bit outside of the recitation of the Creed is English. I think in English it’s a mixture of the internal reference to the specific rite being followed plus the political, external “we are Catholic and Apostolic but do not listen to the guy in white” of the Aglicans.
In Spanish and Catalan the rite is called romano/romà, not latino/llatì. Does anybody know what is it called in Latin? Calling it “the Latin rite” might be one of those things which English does differently from pretty much any other language in Europe.
My Latin extends to “Romanes eunt domus,” but Wikipedia says “Latin liturgical rites” is “Ecclesia Latina.” “Latin Church” has many translations but not Latin among them.
Bishop John Ireland (a member or the Latin church) is sometimes called “The father of the Orthodox church in America” because he wasn’t very friendly towards eastern Catholics. They eventually got fed up with him and decided to go orthodox. So yes, while the eastern Catholic churches are nominally united with the Latin church, they don’t always get along in practice, and look very different than the Latin church that most people think of when they think Catholic.
OK this (like so much else) can get a bit confusing.
Fairly early on the church developed eastern and western variations, most comonly referred to as “Greek” and “Latin”. In both the Greek church and the Latin church there are several different liturgical rites in use. All the rites used in the Greek church look somewhat like one another, and all the rites used in the Latin church look very like one another. So if somebody refers to, say, a Greek liturgy, that could be any one of several rites. Similarly for Latin liturgy.
But, in the Latin church, one rite is vastly, vastly dominant - the Roman rite. The rest are either defunct, or celebrated only by tiny numbers. This means that “Latin rite” and “Roman rite” are, functionally, all but interchangeable terms.
So, you’ve got the Roman Catholic church, which is the whole church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Within that you’ve got Latin and Greek churches, which celebrate Latin and Greek rites respectively, and dominant among the rites used in the Latin church, you have the Roman rite. So, depending on context, “Roman” could be a reference to the a particular liturgical rite, or (used loosely) to the Latin church as opposed to the Greek church, or to the entire church.
“Roman”, to characterise the entire church, is especially common among English speakers, due no doubt to the influence on the language of Anglicans who needed a way to refer to the Pope-headed church which didn’t appear to concede that that church had an exclusive claim to catholicity.