Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Eastern / Syriac (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Syriac Christianity work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Assyria (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

Archives (permanent link form):

Question of Latin terminology[edit]

The quote from the Vatican web page uses the phrase "ad quiquennium" in describing the Congregation of the Oriental Churches. Is this a misspelling of quinquennium (meaning a period of five years)? And if so, shouldn't the article say that the appointments are for a five year term rather than using a Latin term few general readers are familiar with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.22.166 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Byzantine Rite Catholic" in Andy Warhol[edit]

Andy Warhol says "Warhol was a practicing Byzantine Rite Catholic ". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#Religious_beliefs

I'd like to link Byzantine Rite Catholic, but I'm not sure where it should direct. Anybody? Thanks. (Crossposted to Talk:Byzantine Rite ) -- Writtenonsand 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume he belonged to the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, part of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Lima 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely, since his parish is said to be St. Vincent's and there is no St. Vincent's in that eparchy in New York City. This says he went to St. Vincent Ferrer, a Latin rite parish on Lexington Avenue. It seems this was simply his neighborhood parish, and he didn't go out of his way to find one of his own rite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
However, frequenting a Latin church or receiving the sacraments in the rite of the Latin Church would not make him a Latin Catholic, if he was not one, no matter how long he kept it up (cf. canon 112 §2 of the Code of Canon Law - I presume there is a corresponding canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). But I have absolutely no way of knowing whether what is reported of him (that he was a Byzantine-Rite Catholic) is true or not. Perhaps someone else has. Lima 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Warhol was in fact a Lemko/Rusyn/Ruthenian by ethnicity (his original name was "Warhola") and grew up in that rite, which has been variously styled Ruthenian, Carpatho-Rusyn and Byzantine over the years (most congregations under the jurisdiction now simply call themselves, for instance, "St. Michael's Byzantine Catholic Church," though around the block there may be an "Assumption Ukrainian Catholic Church," also by ritual "byzantine," but by jusrisdiction under Philadelphia rather than Pitssburgh). Warhol is buried in a Ruthenian cemetery with an Eastern style cross on the stone. However, he did attend St. Vincent Ferrer (I actually saw him there, sometimes in the middle of the day when the church was otherwise empty, all alone in the in prayer). As mentioned above, his technical rite would have remained Byzantine/Ruthenian, had he chosen to become a priest for instance or had children to be baptized. However, Catholic is Catholic and any Catholic can actually worship in any parish. The technicality of ritual jurisdiction would not have been an issue in his daily worship life.HarvardOxon 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it would probably be best to use the pipe trick, linking to [[Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh|Byzantine Catholic]]. The redirect from Byzantine Catholic should point here, as I don't believe we have an article on just the Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition. Gentgeen 08:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
(To HarvardOxon) You need not provide to the present company a précis of Warhol's ethnicity. To those of Lemko descent such as myself, it's well-known.
Regardless of his "technical rite" (which I cannot agree is not an issue in one's prayer life) he chose to worship in a Latin rite parish. It therefore seems somewhat misleading to say he was a "practicing Byzantine Catholic" and leave it at that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that I must confess that, though I am of the present company, I knew nothing about Andy Warhol's ethnicity. At any rate, it appears to be undoubted that he was a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic. It is not so certain that someone who is canonically a Latin Catholic cannot find Byzantine forms of worship more conducive to prayer - or vice versa. But Csernica is certainly right in saying that calling Warhol "a practicing Byzantine Catholic" is easily misinterpreted. How about "a Byzantine Catholic and a person who practiced his faith" or something like that? Lima 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
As the OP on this one, I too found this interesting and informative, and (A) I think some of this could be added to Andy Warhol, and (B) I'd still like to see some kind of decision on the correct link for Byzantine Rite Catholic. Thanks to all! -- Writtenonsand 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there are several solutions. But I think that, in view of the observations above, you should first edit the text so that it no longer says "a practicing Byzantine Rite Catholic". Then you can link "Byzantine Rite Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic" with Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh or Ruthenian Catholic Church, whichever you prefer. Or you can add an explanatory footnote/reference and put as many links into that as you wish. Others may give you better advice than I can. Lima 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How about saying that he was raised a Byzantine Rite (Ruthenian) Catholic, and that he remained a practicing Catholic throughout his life? john k 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look I attended many countries and places in the mid east. I have never seen any practicing Eastern Catholic churches. Also you guys used the term in communication with the Pope of Rome far too many times. The Pope of Rome is not a recognised Church see anymore, his regime is called a Papacy and his order are the papists. The term Kotholikon as is typically in the East describes their cathedrals that practice Byzantine or Hellenic Liturgy not Latin.

I'm glad to see the crazy people have joined us. john k 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone may want to remind User:Ephestion that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize one another. And I'm more than happy to recommend any number of Eastern Catholic churches to visit while in the Middle East -- or most any other place. Majoreditor 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Since your article has no proof or evidence to the existance of an Eastern Catholic church. I have reverted and will continue to do so. The moment the Katholik church split it formed the Orthodox and Papal Church. There never was an Eastern Catholic church nor do they exist. Yes even Orthodoxy is in communion with the Papacy, the monks of Athos are and always will be in protest for the communion because the Pope of Rome is not the authentic and legitimate appointed bishop of that see. The Bishop of Constantinople must send Three Bishops with acknowledgment from teh other sees before nominating the new Bishop. The process has not been conducted for centuaries leaving the see of Rome unoccupied till today. Do not confuse Catholic faith with Papal faith.

The following post was brought to you by Trolls "R" Us. But seriously -- the vast majority of the Orthodox communion disagrees with your fringe view. 'Nuf said, we don't need to feed this one any more. Majoreditor 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect Andy attended the cathedral, wich was on Atwood Street in the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh where he lived. It was later secularized (de-consecrated) and sold. This was in the neighborhood where he grew up. Pustelnik (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how much discussion this topic has received!! :-) Spiritquest (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

East-West Schism causes[edit]

Let us cooperate in improving the text. Here are some of my difficulties with Jonathan Tweet's version. I am sure he will modify it in view of them.

  1. The over-simplified date of 1054. The schism is conventionally dated to 1054, when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Papal Legate Humbert of Mourmoutiers issued mutual excommunications. In spite of that event, "both Churches continued for many years to maintain friendly relations and seemed to be unaware of any formal or final rupture" (Milton V. Anastos, Constantinople and Rome).
  2. The schism, Jonathan says, "occurred when the four Patriarchs of the East and the Bishop of Rome disagreed about the Bishop of Rome's primacy". This seems perhaps to be a Western POV, although I admit it can be interpreted more evenly. The Eastern POV would be that it occurred when the Bishop of Rome began to claim a novel primacy of jurisdiction, not just of honour, a change that occurred in the West, not in the East.
  3. "The split reflected the division between Greek and Latin that goes back to the early church but that had gotten worse with the fall of the Roman Empire." "Back to the early Church"? Some early Popes were Greeks. For a long time, Rome celebrated the liturgy in Greek. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, France wrote in Greek. "... the fall of the Roman Empire" For the Byzantines, the Roman Empire still existed in 1054, in spite of having lost its western provinces. The Emperor styled himself Emperor of the Romans.
  4. "discipline concerning marriage and divorce". There was no controversy about this. At the reunion councils of Lyon and Florence it was not mentioned, and in the decrees for the Greeks no particular discipline was imposed.
  5. Jonathan's version suggests that the quarrel, which seems to have been initially a power struggle more than anything else, was basically about doctrine. Lima 05:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, cooperating to improve the text instead of fighting! I love this page!
  1. 1054 is simple but better than nothing. It's a conventional anchor point and valuable in that regard. If it goes away, I'd like to see it replaced by something helpful rather than vague.
  2. I tried to write the disagreement neutrally, but a touchy issue is difficult. Any neutral wording is fine.
  3. The beginning of the Greek-Latin split, when is that? Wasn't there a Latin-writing pope from Africa? Can we use his papacy as a landmark for the start of the split? As for the fall of the Roman Empire, fixing this is fine. It's important that the decline of civilization in the West meant the decline of Greek-language instruction and all that went with it. The fall of the western provinces led to increased division within the church. See Early Middle Ages.
  4. Ditch marriage/divorce. It was there when I got here, and I am slow to delete material even if I can't verify it myself.
  5. There were real doctrinal differences. Those go back centuries. Augustine's original sin is contrary to the Greek tradition, for example. And of course the filioque clause. Were the doctrinal differences exaggerated to serve political ends? Could we refer to political and doctrinal differences and not take a stand on which was the cart and which the horse? Or is there actually consensus that it was a power play?
Jonathan Tweet 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The African pope would have been Pope Victor I, who was bishop of Rome at the end of the 2nd century. It was about 150 more years before the Latin-language mass became widespread, though. That's obviously far to early to be talking about a split. The popes no longer knew Greek by the time of Pope Gregory I at the end of the 6th century, if not earlier. I think that's when we see the first hint of a split, with that pope's exercise of temporal power, his vision of a larger role for the bishop of Rome within the Church, and teachings on Purgatory. There had been schisms earlier, when some Eastern patriarchates adopted heretical doctrines, but they were always quickly healed when Orthodoxy reasserted itself, but these would persist in the West and remain contentious issues to this day. At the time, these did not cause a schism and didn't elicit any objections from the East, if it was even noticed, and I don't think it had much to do with the language. (It does seem to me that events in Italy forced St. Gregory's hand in many ways here. I simply note it gave impetus to several trends that ultimately contributed to the Schism.)
A better marker for the beginning of the Great Schism is perhaps the Photian schism, which is when some of these matters, with the filioque thrown in for good measure, first became issues in a division of the Churches. The final nail in the coffin of unity would almost certainly be the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. So it could be regarded as a gradual process that took place over a period of 335 years, with a "pivot point" in 1054. Even then it wasn't entirely final, as the Council of Florence did achieve a kind of limited unity for a brief time. I don't recall any specific sources for this; perhaps there's something in Ware. I have a few volumes of Pelikan, and perhaps there's something there too.
It's only fair to note that the Catholics only expressed their doctrine on Original Sin as dogma at the Council of Trent, over 1,000 years after Augustine wrote. [1] It does not seem to me that they adopted his position without alteration, but I'll leave explanation of that to those who understand Catholic dogma better than I do.
I think you have a valid point about genuine doctrinal differences being put to political ends, thereby magnifying them. That's something that needs to be explored, although perhaps the details should be confined to the article on the Schism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Just to pipe in, officially, according to the history of the church accepted by Rome, the church of Constantinople was in communion with Rome for only 600 of the first 1000 years of Christianity. They were also in Communion for a total of 200 years after the so called 1054 split. In all of it, the splits were almost entirely due to pandering and politics. The original theological reasons for the split have actually been done away with for a very long time (leavened bread), only to find that people just didn't want the churches to get back together so they made up some a new controversy (filioque). Perhaps a timeline and a percentage could be used if you really want to deal with the 1054 split but shouldn't this page deal more with giving facts about what the Eastern Catholic churches are and deal less with the split since the Great Schism (that lasted only 60 years but was re-instated) already has its own page? I say give a link to that page and a very brief description but let the current fact have room. What this seems like to me is that you want to stamp "1054 INVALID" on every fact about these churches and that certainly isn't fair or neutral. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Official Name of the Catholic Church[edit]

The official name is not The Roman Catholic Church, it is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is composed of Roman Catholics (or 'Latins'), Greek Catholics (including Melkites, Uniates), Maronites, Syrian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics et cetera.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talkcontribs)

Source of this statement about the (only) official name, please. Lima 13:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of the title of the Communion of Christians in union with the Bishop of Rome is a vexed one in Wikipedia. As a Catholic myself I can understand that some Catholics might object to the term Roman Catholic Church. Catholics do not generally use the term; historically it was used by Christian denominations (principally Anglican in the English-speaking world)) who also called themselves Catholic (catholic in the sense of universal).For Catholics, to say Roman Catholic Church makes as much sense as saying the Washingtonian United States or the Londonian United Kingdom. However, it seems that this is the convention used in Wikipedia. It is convenient, and distinguishes Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, of whatever liturgical observance, from other Christians calling themselves Catholic. The term 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' comes from the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. Many Christian communions use this phrase, and so is not exclusively a title of the Catholic Church.--Gazzster 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To put another spin on this ...
In a general sense any group has a right to name itself and Wikipedia should be respectful of this. However, there are limitations. Specifically a group does not have the right to unilaterally choose an identity for itself that denies the identity of other groups regardless of its size and power.
The term "Catholic" Church (or the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church") was originally applied to the entire Church of the Roman Empire. As that Church has split and splintered over time many of the resulting churches have claimed to be the unique descendant of the Roman Church. The churches that have the clearest historic claim, of course, are those headed by bishops succeeding directly from the original Pentarchy.
The fact that the churches in communion with Rome tend to today be most strongly associated with the term Catholic in the West has to do with the relative power of the Church of Rome in the last several centuries, but this association has never been formally accepted across the Christian world (indeed it has been formally rejected throughout the Christian history).
The point is that power is not legitimacy and it is not fair to argue that because the Church of Rome has good PR that it has earned the exclusive right to the term. It would be one thing if the other patriarchs had long ago yielded this term to Rome. That would be entirely different. But this has never been the case.
Regardless of what any group considers its official name Wikipedia should not "take sides" and that sometimes means, for the sake of neutrality, using naming conventions for a group that the group does not consider official.
--Mcorazao 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church did not have an entry to this point. I made it a redirect to Roman Catholic Church. If someone wants to protest it, we can sort it out when there's an actual objection. TMLutas 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Church refers to itself by several different terms depending on who we are having talks with. Internally, Catholic Church seems to be most prevalent but so too is Church of God, Church of Christ, or the Church of the Saints (in that all Saints in Heaven are considered members). Legally, the word Ecclesia is all that need be used and is all that is used in Cannon Law as well as how the Church describes itself in the legal code of other countries. The other "names" are then really just descriptions or agreed upon local language lingo. Officially, this Latin word consist of the name of the Church (and is translated as The Church) and even the Eastern Catholic Churches are legally described with this. The Greek word of same meaning and origin is not held to be propiatary by the Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr Mindbender's reversion[edit]

Perhaps Dr M will accept at least some of my variations, if I explain them.

  1. First the least controversial: Is it not usual to put the reference footnote after, not before, the semicolon punctuation? The reference footnote is put after the punctuation at the end of the paragraph in question, at the end of the preceding paragraph, and, I think, everywhere else in the article.
  2. "Roman Catholic Church" seems necessary early in this paragraph, to prepare for the immediately following statement: "they are not 'Roman Catholics' in the narrower sense(s)"
  3. One can be a "Roman" Catholic in more than two senses: a) a member of the Church that is in fact called Roman Catholic, even by its highest authorities; b) a Catholic belonging to the local Catholic Church in Rome, as a Catholic belonging to the local Catholic Church in Warsaw can be called a Warsaw Catholic; c) a member of the Latin particular Church, which some call the "Roman" Catholic Church. The latter two senses are narrower than the first. Accordingly, after a mention of the first sense you cannot just speak in the singular of "the narrower sense of that term".
  4. To speak in the context of membership of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and so of membership of the (Roman) Catholic Church, of "the Patriarchate of the West" goes against the still recent decision of that Church that "le titre de « Patriarche d’Occident », peu clair depuis les origines, devenait obsolète dans l’évolution de l’histoire et pratiquement inutilisable. Continuer à l’utiliser n’a donc plus de sens"[2] (the title of "Patriarch of the West", unclear since the beginning, became obsolete in the course of history and practically unusable. So, to continue using it no longer has any sense). Lima 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to refer to the Communion as the "Catholic Church", but I realize that there are larger issues with the terminology. Suffice it to say that the term "Roman Catholic Church" is the normal reference used within WP for the moment.
The term "Patriarch of the West" should be used only under very specific circumstances, usually as an historic reference. The term is most likely not needed is this article. Majoreditor 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Martyrs?[edit]

I don't understand why this section is here, and if it ought to be here why there is only one listed, and this fairly recently. It seems very odd to have it here the way it is. Orpheus42 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. The section should be developed or removed. In its present form it's not suitable for inclusion. Majoreditor 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern Reforms[edit]

I think that a section on the Vatican II and post-Vatican II reforms as applied to the Eastern Catholic Churches would be quite useful. We are actually living in very heady times. In order to avoid unseemly fights, I'm starting a sandbox for the page and invite the community that visits here to stop by and contribute. TMLutas 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Majoreditor 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't seem to be getting much contribution over there. What's a reasonable time to leave this stuff in the sandbox before moving it to the article if there's no correcting edits? TMLutas 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I made some comments. Sorry that I am too sluggish today to do any more. Majoreditor 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


    • NOTE**

I think that 11/1 would be a reasonable day to take this out of the sandbox. TMLutas 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


I just moved it out of the sandbox, sorry for the delay TMLutas (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

% comment[edit]

The statement that refers to the number of Eastern Christians that are Eastern Rite Catholics seems very out of place, POV and insulting. Maybe you think that I am being too thin skinned here but there has to be a better way of putting it. The statement only holds true if you count all the different protestants who live in the East as Eastern Christians. If this were not bad enough, it also seems as if your numbers are based on Latin Rite Catholics who live in the East as well, which seem wrong; using Catholic numbers to make a seemingly derogatory statement against Eastern Catholics. On top of that, we must consider the huge population of Russia, and the fact that all Russians are said to belong to the Church of Russia, even if they are not baptized and never go to Liturgy!

What would be a much fairer way to handle this, besides just not making the insulting statement AT ALL, would be to separate it out by rite or location or even by local church. It certainly is true that Byzantine Catholics are vastly out numbered by Byzantine non Catholics. It is also true that Coptic as well as Ethiopian Catholics are aswell vastly outnumbered. The same could be said for Armenian Catholics but then our definition of what an Armenian Catholic is must be clarified. Outside of the country of Armenia, there are more Armenian Catholics then Armenian Rite non Catholics. So it depends on how you want to define your groups. If we refer to Syrian Rite Catholics, we all have to admit that they outnumber the Syrian Rite non Catholics. If we speak of Byzantine Rite in the Middle East but not in Europe, Catholics again are in the majority. If we talk about Byzantine Rite in Italy, again, the Catholics are the majority. Now, it is true that there are more Non Catholic Christians in India then Catholic Christians, and that is without counting the protestants who most Indian Christians do not count as Christians. However, just one of the Catholic Catholic Churches in Idia is larger then any other when compared church to church.

These kind of remarks, stating that ONLY 10% of Easter Christians are Catholic, is the kind of double standard of discrimination that is always heeped on Catholics. You want to make Eastern Catholics seem like the small, weak and out of place group. Considering that most of this number is hugely affected by the population of Russia and the trumped up number of Church enrollment there, I really feel like the statement needs to be said a different way or excluded from the article all together. This kind of statement is only really used, not for informational purposes but to try to discredit the validity of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

On this last point we could also point out a number of different things. In the cases of the Ukrainian Catholics Church, Melkite Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Churc, Chaldean Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic ChurchIt, Italo-Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Greek Catholic Church was the Church leadership of these churches that established communion with the Catholic Church and thus these Churches are the true legitimate continuation of the original deposit of faith in the area for these churches. The other Churches in the area that do not have communion with the Catholic Church but have communion with other churches represent a schism from the original Church. This status could also be said to exist in several other of the Catholic Churches but not all of course. In some cases the information is very hazy as to exactly how certain elections came about but the Belerusian Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church are certainly in the grey area. Now it is true that the Coptic Catholic, Byzantine Greek Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, and Russian Catholic Churches represent certain bishops, priest and lay faithful that went into schism with their local Church leadership in order to establish communion with Rome. I find it interesting that in all of the articles about the churches listed on this site, great pains were made to point out that they are just in schism with the original Church leadership but no mention is made of the cases where the original church leadership joined into communion with Rome and the mirror Churches of `orthodoxy` are the ones in schism, leaving the church in protest of the rightful decision of the true church leadership. I suspect a sutle conspiracy is involved in this.

I see a lot non factual Anti-East, anti-Catholic information on this site and I am not the only one to complain about it. I understand that writers get things wrong and that this site is limited to the knowledge of its apperantly amatuer, non professional staff but still, if you did not know that this was an issue before, please take this into consideration now and make some changes to be fair and respectful to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)



Defunct Easten Catholic Churches[edit]

What's about Slavonic Eastern Catholic Church or Catholic Church of Eastern Slavonic rite (pol. Kośćioł Katolicki obrzędku wschodniosłowianskiego. ukr. Католицька церква східнословянського обряду), so called Neouniates? In Kostomloty one parish is exists and today.Anyway, we need a chapter about defunct churches (Byzantine Catholic CHurch of Constantinople, Grek Catholic church of Cyprus (in Kingdom of Cyprus)etc). Another question: Armenian Catholic Church in Eastern Europe (under archbishop of Leopolis) is part of common Armenian Catholic Church or separate church of Armenian rite like there are many churches of Byzantine rite. And where are offical names of these churches used by Vatican? For example, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is called Catholic Church of Byzantine-Ukrainian rite (Ecclesia Catholica Ritu Byzantino-Ukrainensis)/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.230.114 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


As for my understanding all of the Armenian Rite in the Catholic Church are part of the Armenian Catholic Church, although in Europe they are often cared for by priest of another Rite (Byzantine or Latin) depending on which jurisdiction they live in. Members of the Armenian Apostolic Church or either see that convert to Catholicism are usually encouraged to join the Armenian Catholic Church but there is no provision requiring this.
Official names for different Churches will depend on the name for that Church as adopted for a specific language. In English the official name for the Ukranian Church is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. In French this name is different and in Latin it is different. They aren't that much different but the "official" ness of it depends on if a name is adopted and used in a specific language. For instance, Greek Orthodox who opperate churches in Syria usually call themselves the "Roman Orthodox Church". This would of course sound very odd in English and especially odd in Latin and any Western European language.
As to defunct Eastern Catholic Churches, I can imagine that this would be a very heated question that would reveal someone's theological bend. As some Eastern Catholic Churches have come into and then out of communion again some within the Catholic church might consider them defunct Catholic Churches. St. Aquinas even taught that Churches in schism even while retaining valid orders and sacrements did not recieve the graces that went along with them because of the sin of schism. I understant what you mean to ask, in that have there been Eastern Catholic Churches that have died out, but even this is not really able to be answered as if there were any, it would have been a very long time ago before the idea that we have today of the Latin and Byzantine Rites being completely separate developed. It has happened in the past that certain Eastern Catholic Churches went without priest or bishops for some time but the faithful usually remained and eventually this problem of clergy was resolved. Some now say that many Catholics in Russia are now without priest and are barred from going to the Church of Russia for sacrements by the Russian authorities so they gather to pray the psalms. Even now within each church outside of communion with Rome there is at least some in the minority who are Pro-reunion, often called the papist party.
anyway I hope that helps you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.47.72 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Uniates[edit]

This term redirects here but is not found in the article. Can this be rectified, either by expansion or by stubbing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect to point to the section of this article that does speak of the term "Uniate". Lima (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

False quotation[edit]

I regret to have to say that the anonymous editor at IP 74.171.49.250 is not above inserting false quotations. That editor wrote that the source already included in the article had the following text: "The term 'uniate' itself, once used with pride in the Roman communion, had long since come to be considered as pejorative. 'Eastern Rite Catholic' also was no longer in vogue because it might suggest that the Catholics in question differed from Latins only in the externals of worship. The Second Vatican Council affirmed rather that Eastern Catholics constituted churches, whose vocation was to provide a bridge to the separated churches of the East, although many of the Orthodox faith believe that to reunite the two churches, they should return the the original church (Orthodoxy) with a group of patriarchs as the head as it has always been, instead of turning Orthodoxy to the authority of one person (the pope)". What the text in fact has, as can be checked, is: "The term 'uniate' itself, once used with pride in the Roman communion, had long since come to be considered as pejorative. 'Eastern Rite Catholic' also was no longer in vogue because it might suggest that the Catholics in question differed from Latins only in the externals of worship. The council affirmed rather that Eastern Catholics constituted churches, whose vocation was to provide a bridge to the separated churches of the East. But if, as subsequent dialogue was emphasizing, the Orthodox churches themselves are truly 'sister churches,' already nearly at the point of full communion with the Roman Church, what rationale-apart from purely pastoral concern for Christians who might otherwise feel alienated and possibly betrayed-can there be for the continued existence of such 'bridge churches'?"

This surely is not acceptable behaviour. Lima (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unacceptable for editors to alter quotations or fudge citations. Majoreditor (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church[edit]

The anonymous editor at IP 117.196.129.245 claims that the date of union or foundation of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is 1663, the date of the ordination of Bishop Chandy. The Church itself disagrees, claiming to have maintained its identity since the first century (see About Syro-Malabar Church) and that not all of the Thomas Christians participated in the break from Rome by "most" of them in 1653 (The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church). (See also History of the Syro-Malabar Church.) Stephen Neill's A History of Christianity in India (Cambridge University Press, 2004 ISBN 0521548853, 9780521548854), which recounts on p. 325 the episcopal ordination of Bishop Chandy, certainly does not present it as an act of union of a formerly separated Church with that of Rome nor as the foundation of a new Church (since Chandy was consecrated to carry on the work of Bishop Sebastiani, who was being expelled by the new Dutch masters of Cochin). I have therefore put "date disputed" as an indication of the date of union or foundation of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. This neither affirms nor denies the anonymous editor's point of view, and only makes a neutral statement on the question. Lima (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Filioque?[edit]

I came to this page in search of a quick answer as to whether Eastern Catholics include the Filioque. The article states that this was a reason for the Great Schism (duh) and, a few lines later, that Eastern churches wishing to restore Communion with Rome were welcomed back without "question of requiring them to adopt the customs of the Latin Church." I'm sure there's some WP: bit about wikipedia not being a cheat sheet, and it is entirely possible that the answer to my question is somewhere buried in the article, but I think it's reasonable to ask that a point as important as this be addressed clearly and in a position of some prominence within the article.

tl;dr Do Eastern Catholics believe in the filioque? Does it vary from particular church to particular church? Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a complex question. My understanding is that all Catholic churches - both Latin and Western - hold in common dogmatic matters. That said, some of the Eastern Catholic churches ommit the filioque in when they recite the Creed. Not including the words "and the Son" does not signfy disagreement with the Roman doctrine, but merely keeps to the traditional Eastern practice and formula.
At least that's how I've heard some describe how it works.
In practice, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches no lomger include the Filioque, although some do. In my parish (Melkite) it was dropped some years ago. Some of the more Latinized churches such as the Maronite retain it.
There are many Eastern Catholics who would have no problem with flushing the Filioque. On that note, I expect that some of the nihil obstat crowd may wish to offer an opinion. Majoreditor (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The 14 Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite (at least those of which I have certain knowledge) do not include "Filioque". Of the 8 other Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Ethiopic (Ethiopia and Eritrea) Catholic Church and the [Maronite do include it.
The Armenian Catholic Church (one of the 8 non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches) naturally uses the Armenian Nicene Creed with its many additions to the original text. These additions do not include "Filioque".
Even Latin Catholics do not include "Filioque" when reciting the Nicene Creed in Greek, since the exact meaning of the word translated into English as "who proceeds" is different in Latin and in Greek. This will explain the omission of "Filioque" in the liturgy of Churches that use the Byzantine Rite, which was originally composed in Greek. Lima (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The dogmatic issue between Rome and Constantinople was always that the latter denounced the "filioque" as heretical, while Rome merely demanded that Constantinople accept the orthodoxy of the creed with or without the addition. Hence, reciting the filioque was not imposed on any Eastern Catholic Church. Str1977 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As a complete outsider to Catholicism I came to this page with a similar question which I expected to be simple: How did the Eastern Catholic Churches come to be, and when? What is the story? Were they once affiliated with Eastern Orthodoxy but then later re-established communion with Rome, or are they churches which never split with Rome when the Eastern Orthodox churches did? I never found a clear answer to either of these questions in this article. I would think that information as basic and important as this should be prominently discussed in an article like this, and easy to find.Spiritquest (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As is at least hinted by the above, the Eastern Catholic Churches are of quite different origins. Some can and do boast of never having broken communion with Rome. So when did these Churches come to be? With the arrival of Christianity in their areas is the short answer. Others have a much more recent origin. In the case of the Ruthenian Church, for example, the (re)union with Rome came with the Union of Brest. To give an account for each and every one of the Eastern Catholic Churches of when they were constituted as Church in full communion with Rome (and when, for some of them, the break of communion first occurred) would take far too much space in this general article about them. The information on this matter for each of them must be sought in the article on the Church in question. Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible workgroup[edit]

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with the Eastern Catholic Churches, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rant in "terminology" section[edit]

It is quite evident that the initial paragraph in this section is merely a rant in the continued terminology issue. The individuals on the "Roman.." side are simply cherry picking the very few documents which mention the "Roman" prefix. This is inappropriate and unnecessary unless it also mentions the fact that for the GRAND majority of Church documents it refers to itself as simply "The Catholic Church" or just "The Church".

Sourced documentation of this is so overwhelming, beginning with the latest version of Church beliefs: the Catechism of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Providing a sources for every time the Church refers to itself as such could take most of this article. I'd say the Catechism more than suffices to make the point.

But to present merely the "Roman-" terminologic POV without the entire picture is quite insincere to the topic and certainly not from a Neutral point of view. Micael (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Emendations[edit]

I have removed the epithet 'Greek' from these names: Albanian Greek Catholic Church, Belarusian Greek Catholic Church, Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Greek Catholic Church, Macedonian Greek Catholic Church, Slovak Greek Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. I removed the epithet 'Byzantine' from Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci and Greek Byzantine Catholic Church. In the cases of these churches, the terms 'Greek' and 'Byzantine' have no official and historical value. You should not use a vague interpretation of these terms and apply them against official and historical usage. I mean by official and historical usage the official and historical usage at the Vatican. Those who used a Constantinopolitan rite were never called Greeks unless they were Greeks. Please provide official and historical documents to support the use of the terms 'Greek' and 'Byzantine'. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish Slavonic Rite[edit]

I have read that in prewar Poland there were some Byzantine Slavonic rite churches created on the iniative of the Latin Church in Poland that were subject to the local Latin bishop unaffiliated with any established Ritual Church like the UGCC or other Union of Brest product. These chuches many due to persecutions from the 2nd Republic government, left Catholicism to join the Polish Orthodox Church and the rest were lost during World War 2. However, 1 parish fulltime and 2 other parish on a semi basis still celebrate this variety. Shouldnt it be mentioned? Here is a link with some reading of it http://rumkatkilise.org/Belarus%20catholic_church_in_poland.htm Nova2488 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are not recognized by the Holy See as a sui iuris Church, I think they are not such a Church, any more than the few Anglican Use parishes in the United States constitute a sui iuris Church. Esoglou (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks, that makes a lot of sense Nova2488 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

When and how did the Eastern Catholic Churches come to be?[edit]

As a complete outsider to Catholicism I came to this page with a question I expected to be fairly simple: How did the Eastern Catholic Churches come to be, and when? What is the story? Were they once affiliated with Eastern Orthodoxy but then later re-established communion with Rome, or are they churches which never split with Rome when the Eastern Orthodox churches did? I never found a clear answer to either of these questions in this article. I would think information as basic and important as that should be prominently discussed in an article like this, and easy to find. I would greatly appreciate someone adding this information to the article, or else clarifying it if the info is already there, because I couldn't find it.Spiritquest (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question was already answered above the first time you asked it. Tb (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Blatant Bias[edit]

This paragraph:

"Within each Church, no longer in communion with the Church of Rome, there arose a group that considered it important to restore that communion. The See of Rome accepted them as they were, without any requirement to adopt the customs of the Latin Church."

And the one that follows it shows blatant pro-Rome bias and is inappropriate cheerleading for an encyclopedia article. TheCormac (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is Churches capitalized?[edit]

There is no reason why the word "Churches" is repeatedly Capitalized. I understand the word Church in "Eastern Orthodox Chuch" should be capitilized because it is part of a proper name. However, the word "churches" in "Eastern Catholic churches" is not a proper name for any thing, person, or organization. It does not qualify under MOS:PN. It is a general descriptive noun for these group of chuches. For example: American people and List of Orthodox churches are not capitalized correctly. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)