Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name revisited

I think this was a good decision - this compromise seemed to have the broadest support. Fishhead64 14:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the only thing that's missing now is a disambiguation link saying that "Catholic, in this setting, means Roman Catholic, for other uses, see XXX". Dpotop 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fishhead64 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I read the archived discussion on this. I'm surprised that this option was chosen for the name. Do any of the Churches that are being considered here use this term to describe themselves? I think the most common self-designation is "Eastern Catholic Churches." Notice these examples from official websites:
http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/ugcc_history/
"The UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH (UGCC) is the largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui juris. The UGCC is a Church of the Byzantine rite which is in full ecclesial communion with the Pope of Rome..."
http://www.archeparchy.org/page/metropolitan/metropolitan.htm
[Describing Metropolitan Basil]:"He is head of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, the only Eastern Catholic Metropolitan Church sui iuris in the United States." (Notice it does not say "Eastern Rite Catholic Metropolitan Church.")
http://www.ecdd.org/
"ECDD also serves the Church by expressing the vision of catechetics in the Eastern Catholic Churches as a national voice and promoting recognition of the identity and contributions of the Eastern Catholic Churches today."
Why should Wikipedia not use the self-designation of these Churches? Dtbrown 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I can easily expand the above list. Here are two more examples from official websites and one from a parish website:
http://www.melkite.org/eastern.htm
“Eastern Catholic Churches are groups of Christians whose traditions are based on the style of Constantinople but are in union with the church of Rome.”
http://www.faswebdesign.com/ECPA/
“The Eastern Catholic Pastoral Association is composed of clergy and religious from the various Eastern Catholic Churches and clergy from the Roman Catholic churches in Southern California. The purpose of this association is to make available information about the Eastern Catholic Churches.”
http://www.saintthomastheapostle.org/salim1.html
“All these Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with one another and each Eastern Catholic Church is in communion with the See of Rome.”
Why should there be debate on what to name the article that describes these Churches? They refer to themselves as "Eastern Catholic Churches," not "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches." Ironically, this article itself uses "Eastern Catholic Churches" and not "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches." I ask other editors to produce one reference from an official Eastern Catholic website where they refer to themselves as "Eastern Rite Catholic." "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches" should redirect to "Eastern Catholic Churches." Dtbrown 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not intervene in the previous discussion on the name of this article. I didn't and don't think it important enough, although for practical reasons of linking with other articles I think the original name "Eastern Rite" had some advantages. Here I will intervene only to say that there are sources more authoritative than websites of Eastern Catholic Churches or Eastern-Rite Churches or whatever other valid name you wish to give them. Take the Second Vatican Council, which those Churches rank as an Ecumenical Council, higher really than themselves, much higher than any website of theirs. It issued a decree with the title "Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite", a title that could equally well, or better, be translated from the Latin as "Decree on Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches". Lima 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the Second Vatican Council is also much more authoritative on Catholic Church usages than - and perhaps contradicts - "Eastern Orthodox Professor John Erickson", whose quotation ASDamick wants to keep in the article. Lima 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The evolution to "Eastern Catholic Churches" from "Eastern Rite Catholic" is a post-Vatican II phenomenon. As the Catholic Update article (now linked in External Links explains: "The Eastern Churches in union with Rome were once called “uniate,” but this term is seen as non-complimentary since it implies an unequal status. The Eastern Churches are still mistakenly called “Eastern-rite” Churches, a reference to their various liturgical histories. They are most properly called Eastern Churches, or Eastern Catholic Churches." "Eastern Catholic Churches" is the designation used by these Churches and is recognized by the US Catholic Bishops' Conference (see "Eastern Catholics in the USA" booklet now linked in External Links published by the USCCB.)
I'm curious as to how many other Eastern Catholics like myself are editing these pages? What is the feeling of Eastern Catholics on this issue?
BTW, the quote from "Eastern Orthodox Professor John Erickson" is one I put in several months ago when I first discovered Wikipedia. I've been busy editing other sections of Wikipedia but now feel ready to do some work here. Dtbrown 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To further show the evolution from "Eastern Rite Catholics" to "Eastern Catholic Churches": Original translations of the Second Vatican Council Decree which Lima referred to above did use the older terminology of "Eastern Rite." When Pope John Paul wrote Orientale Lumen in 1995, the terminology had changed. Footnote 2 of the Holy Father's Apostolic Letter uses the newer terminology:
"Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientialium Ecclesiarum,..." Dtbrown 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't care whether the quote stays in the article, nor do I have strong feelings on the article's name. —Preost talk contribs 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, official sources aren't everything. After all, the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't call itself that, but it is, however, the most commonly known term for it in English.

Anyhow, why don't you put up a new move request and create a section on this talk page dedicated to discussing another move? —Preost talk contribs 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I've not known very many members of the Eastern Orthodox Church who object to that designation. Thanks for the info on how to request a move. Dtbrown 22:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To enter in on this discussion, I think "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches" is a good choice for naming this article because it combines the varying nomenclatures used over time for the same subject. By including the word "rite" in the title, it makes specific reference to the terminology preferred prior to the Second Vatican Council and a phrase generally used during that time period to refer to the phenomenon of churches of eastern origin that are in communion with The Holy See. As Vatican II and subsequent decrees have refined the definitions, "Eastern Rite" alone is not the best description, as these are recognized as autonomous churches, which are understood to be more than just Catholics who have liturgical variances. These churches are still understood as being rooted in the eastern family of liturgies, and leaving in the word "rite" illustrates this.

To be so specific in the title of the article as say "Eastern Catholic Autonomous Ritual Churches" is cumbersome and might not be recognized by a casual observer who is not as familiar with the evolution of the terms used in the naming this subject. By including the word "Catholic" (with a capital C), this eliminates the valid discussion that having an article entitled "Eastern Rite" should be on the actual liturgical rites used in the Christian East, both by churches in full communion with The Holy See and those that are not in communion. We would then have multiple subjects in one article, when we are really talking only about are those churches in full communion with The Holy See. Since another page was set up to list the various eastern liturgical traditions, we further reduce confusion by having this subject point specifically to the Eastern Catholic Churches, those churches in full communion with The Holy See.

No doubt this solution will fail to satisfy everyone. This subject can probably yield a near limitless debate, but I think the current title serves as a compromise of some of the different terminologies employed, and reduces some of the ambiguity that other choices potentially offer. As always, just my take on this matter.

MP 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Eastern-rite Catholic Churches" is a usage that offends many Eastern Catholics. For us it harkens back to the day when people thought of us as "Roman Catholics who have a funny Mass." Why do you think the Catholic Church is moving towards re-naming documents such as Orientalium Ecclesiarum to Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches as I noted above in John Paul II's Orientale Lumen? The name of the article should reflect the self-designation of the group it discusses. To insist on something else is insensitive. The National Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops has said:
"We have been accustomed to speaking of the Latin (Roman or Western) Rite or the Eastern Rites to designate these different Churches. However, the Church's contemporary legislation as contained in the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches makes it clear that we ought to speak, not of rites, but of Churches. Canon 112 of the Code of Canon Law uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to designate the various Churches." (This is now cited and referenced in the article.)
If it's good enough for the NCCB it's good enough for me. Dtbrown 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And if "Eastern Rite" is good enough for the Synod of Bishops] in its latest assembly, there is no "we ought to" about never nowadays speaking of "rites" in the sense of particular Churches. Nor, of course, is there a prohibition about speaking of "autonomous ritual Churches" (Code of Canon Law) or simply of "autonomous Churches" (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). In other words, in this matter there is obviously more than one right way. (This, I suppose, is my last contribution to this discussion: from today I will be out of contact for some two weeks.) Lima 07:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Lima, I checked every occurrence of "Eastern Rite" in the document you cited and all of them are used in reference to the liturgical celebration of the Liturgy, comparing the Latin and Eastern Rites:
"33. In the Eastern rites, the first part of the Mass is living the mystery of the incarnation of the Word, who comes into the world to make himself heard and to nourish humanity. The Didache states that in partaking of the food and drink of the Eucharist, we are offered the knowledge of God and receive it..."
"In response to this proclamation, the “symbol of faith” is recited after the homily for the Latins and Armenians, or after the transference of the gifts, for the Byzantines and other Eastern Rites."
"35. The priest, or the deacon in the Eastern rites, introduces the Eucharistic Prayer with the invitation: “Lift up your hearts.”"
These are references to various Eastern rites (Byzantine, Armenian, etc.) and how they celebrate the Liturgy. (No reference is made to a specific Church in any of these references.) I have no objection to using "Eastern Rite(s)" in reference to liturgical issues at all. I also have no objection, of course, to "autonomous Churches" or "autonomous ritual Churches."
I don't know if you realize it or not, but our being referred to as particular Churches instead of just "Rites" dates only since Vatican II. That's one reason we object to the older usage as it hearkens back to a time when we were just "Roman Catholics who have a funny Mass." We prefer to be referred to as "Churches" and official Church documents are beginning to reflect that (such as the NCCB booklet I've referred to.) Eritreans are not the only ones who have sensitive feelings on some issues :) Dtbrown 09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Dtbrown's point is valid. The churches don't refer to themselves as Rites, and the Vatican has been moving away from using that term to describe them. "Eastern Catholic Churches" is appropriate. Majoreditor 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo under "Uniate"

The point is well made in the article that "uniate" was a term once used by even Eastern Catholics. What's the point of including a photo of a church plaque on this issue? Seems a bit far afield for this article. Dtbrown 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate the subject in question. —Preost talk contribs 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be more of a "gotcha" type of thing. Why would it be so important in an article about the Eastern Catholic Churches to illustrate that they once used the term "uniate" to describe themselves? The "uniate" section is way out of proportion to the rest of the article. A few sentences on the term "uniate" in this article should be enough. Perhaps it would be better to start a side article on the term "uniate" which could contain the detail? Dtbrown 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I can agree to some trimming for balance issues, though I think it's more needed that the rest of the article should be expanded. In any event, the point is that the term is used in quite a lot of scholarship. Its current unfashionability to Eastern Catholics may give some the impression that scholarly use is meant to deride ECs, but the fact that ECs themselves used to use it puts this in context. —Preost talk contribs 12:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What present-day "scholarly" use?[citation needed] I am not denying that there is such use, but I do have difficulty in imagining what it could be. Lima 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in both the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (2001) and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.) (1997). —Preost talk contribs 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reassurance. Lima 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I still wonder whether the works quoted (and which I would be unable to consult, even if I were on base) really do adopt the term as their scholarly way of referring to the Eastern Catholic Churches, or whether they only use the term to indicate how the non-Catholic Eastern Churches refer to the Catholic ones. However, I do not intend to press this doubt, any more than I press my doubt - no, not my doubt, rather my firm conviction, that inspection of the photograph shows that the word UNIAT was added later (whether by friend or foe of the Pennsylvania church) to the stone, unbalancing the inscription. Lima 08:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


And how can we verify the existence of the plaque? More than likely it is there as the article says but this cannot be verified. The photo itself is not verification in itself. As much as I'd like to go visit Pennslyvania and then be able to verify the photo I cannot. Nor can the majority of Wikipedia users. At most this is original research and should not be in an encyclopedia article. Dtbrown 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A lot of photographs on WP are by WP users (this one included; I took it and live within walking distance of its subject). Photographs on WP have enjoyed a broad exception from the no-original-research policy.
In any event, I can hesitantly agree to removing the text from the article which mentions this photo's subject in particular on NOR grounds, but I don't see how removing the photo would improve the article but would in fact rather lower its value. It's not intended as a "gotcha" any more than this image on the Rapture article is meant that way. It's an illustration which enhances what's being presented.
Even the text itself does not really "contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories" nor "any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." These things are a matter of public record. —Preost talk contribs 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So not only must Eastern Catholics not be allowed their chosen self-designation for the title of this article, they must have the "uniate" label be a major focus of the article. Something is not right. Dtbrown 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article was a subject of debate (see above archive link). There's no need for the uniate terminology to be a "major" focus of the article. Feel free to edit it to be a bit more concise. It does need some mention, though, because it's a term used in a lot of scholarship. —Preost talk contribs 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Father Deacon, I must protest your re-introduction of the photo. I realize you feel attached to it since you originally contributed the photo but I ask you to re-consider. The current view of most Eastern Catholics is that the word "uniate" is offensive. It is true that they used to use the term themselves but what purpose does it serve to highlight that point in the article? Would we insert a picture of African-Americans using the word "negro" to describe themselves in a main article on African Americans? The picture you've contribued may be appropriate in a separate article entitled "uniate," but I fail to see how it fits here, other than it being an attempt to legitimize the continued use of the term. Dtbrown 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I must protest your removal of a photo which has sat in the article for more than a year. I personally don't care what Eastern Catholics or others prefer, though I do tend to use the terminology which various groups prefer for themselves. I would not knowingly cause offense. I do, however, feel that this photo is relevant for historical value and adds something useful to this article.
I'm also willing, by the way, to contribute other photos of this church, which is quite impressive for the little town in which I live. —Preost talk contribs 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer to contribute other photos of the church. I think that would be a better use of photos in this article. Dtbrown 23:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that this is a much-neglected article, which is why there seem to be so few who care whether or not the photo is included. I'll leave it out, if it's just me who thinks it's useful. Look for a new photo soon. —Preost talk contribs 23:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement to improve the article. I've made some tentative changes and welcome input on these. I hope to do some more editing later. Dtbrown 02:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the new photos! They are beautiful!

I was thinking that an article entitled "Uniatism" would be a good addition to Wikipedia. Could be controversial to edit as there are many viewpoints on that, but your original picture would fit well there. Dtbrown 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "sister churches"

Lima,

I had referenced this Vatican webpage to substantiate the use of "sister church" referring to the relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

You removed it and said it was used of non-Catholic Eastern Churches. The actual reference I made does not limit it to non-Catholic Churches. It can refer to "Catholic and non-Catholic Churches":

11. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches;

Would you have any other objections to my re-inserting that into the article? Dtbrown

The document referenced speaks of "«sister Churches,» an expression which appears in important documents of the Magisterium, but which has also been employed in other writings, and in the discussions connected with the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches." It does not seem to apply the phrase to any large extent to the relationship between Catholic Churches of different Rites. In short, tbe phrase "sister Churches" is not used commonly enough of relations between Catholic particular Churches to justify - as I see it - devoting space to it in this article.
I cited an official Church document. If you do not have a reference to the contrary, I will restore the sentence. Dtbrown 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Rite" is still used of these Catholic particular Churches. Note, for instance, the phrase "In response to this proclamation, the “symbol of faith” is recited after the homily for the Latins and Armenians, or after the transference of the gifts, for the Byzantines and other Eastern Rites." in the Lineamenta of the still very recent Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. There is absolutely no need (no justification, even) to outlaw the expression, while, on the other hand, it is quite lawful to maximize use of a different expression. Lima 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read it again you'll notice the document is referring to the liturgical rites. I'm not saying you can't find references elsewhere that refer to our Churches as "Rites." They're there but it's a usage that is disappearing. Dtbrown 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lima's insistence on calling us "Rites"

Before we begin a lengthy battle I'd like to have some discussion. I am puzzled by Lima's insistence on referring to Eastern Catholics as "Rites." Let me state from the outset that I'm an Eastern Catholic. This is something we are quite sensitive about. I don't know why Lima wants to offend Eastern Catholic readers of this site by the continued edits which harken back to earlier terminology. I think the interpretation given by the National Council of Catholic Bishops trumps any interpretation given by Lima. I would ask Lima to find a contemporary statement by Catholic hierarchy that gives a different interpretation. Dtbrown 22:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


The term "rite" is problematic because of its ambiguity. The "Rite of the Sacrament of Penance" is the liturgy for that sacrament. The "Antiochene Rite" can mean the set of liturgical practices and symbols associated with that tradition -- hence, liturgies used by both Catholic and Orthodox Christians. The "Byzantine Rite" is used by a variety of Christians in Europe, etc. Where the term comes up in this context in modern documents, it is usually expressed as "ritual churches." Just as Uniate is offensive to many Eastern Catholics, so reduction of their tradition to the term rite often seems to be. Hence, it would seem to be best to use the "style" and vocabulary employed by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which uses Oriental or Eastern Rite as the term for all the churches of the East (distinguihsed from Western or Latin Rite for the West), and refers to individual sui juris groups as "churches"m, as Maronite Catholic Church, Ukrainian catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, etc. The Code itself is the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churcxhes, for instance, and in the instruction on the congregation, they are referred to as "churches sui juris. So, to be consistent and, since this is an article about Catholicism, we should uses Catholicism's own, self-defined, current terminology, even if one makes a NPOV comment upon the facts.HarvardOxon 22:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What I have in mind particularly is this statement in a publication of the National Council of Catholic Bishops:
“We have been accustomed to speaking of the Latin (Roman or Western) Rite or the Eastern Rites to designate these different Churches. However, the Church's contemporary legislation as contained in the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches makes it clear that we ought to speak, not of rites, but of Churches. Canon 112 of the Code of Canon Law uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to designate the various Churches.”
Certainly the Catholic heirarchy of the US knows how to interpret the various documents that Lima refers to in his/her effort to substantiate the older terminology. Since this is an official publication of the NCCB I think we should follow that terminology in this article. Is there a comparable statement by the Catholic heirarchy today that explicitly states that the correct term to use is "Rites"? Lima has cited some (none of which explicitly state a contrary interpretation) but I've already explained how those references do not apply. To insist on his/her own interpretation despite the official statement of the NCCB consitutes original research, IMO, and should not be allowed to stand. Dtbrown 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm agreeing with you. I think your terminology more closely reflects official/Congregation policy than does LIma's.HarvardOxon 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Does Dtbrown or anyone deny that the documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council speak of these Churches as "rites", a fact now censored in the article? Does Dtbrown or anyone deny that in documents concerning dialogue with other groups "Roman Catholic Church" does not mean Latin Church? I have written about a usage objectively met with. Far from saying that this usage is the one to follow, I left in the article the quotations critical of it, even bringing one up from a footnote. Lima 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Your last edit had this to say about the usage recommended by the NCCB: "The use of the term "rite" to refer to Eastern Churches is lamented by some..." Is that how the article should represent the NCCB's recommendation? Yes, the term "Rite" was used (even in the Second Vatican Council) at times to refer to the Churches. However, as I've noted above, when the document on the Eastern Catholic Churches from Vatican II is referred to nowadays it has been retitled to the current usage. Why are you insistent on highlighting the former usage? Why should a former usage get such broad coverage in this article?
What documents referring to "Roman Catholic Church" are you referring to? "Catholic" is generally preferred, isn't it? Dtbrown 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The wording of my edit can be improved: I do not claim perfection. What I wrote about the the Vatican Council document concerned content, not title: does it or does it not speak of the Eastern Churches as "rites"? Documents with "Roman Catholic Church"? TakeMary: Grace and Hope in Christ (Seattle, 16 May 2005); or Speaking The Truth In Love; or 'Final Communiqué of the Joint Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches; or several more that you can look up for yourself at Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Lima 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I've said in these conversations that the word "Rite" has been used in the past to refer to what are now more clearly spoken of as "Churches." Look at stuff pre-Vatican II and you'll find very little reference to us as "Churches" in Catholic documents. There's been a development that began at Vatican II and has continued until now. So, now you want to go against the recommendation of the NCCB and the most recent nomenclature. Why?
As to the word "Roman Catholic." It's used in ecumenical settings but generally the Church prefers just "Catholic." We are Eastern Catholics in union with the Pope of Rome. We are not "Roman Catholic." Dtbrown 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What Dtbrown has said in conversations is immaterial. What matters is what is said in the article, which should not censor the fact that the Second Vatican did use the word "rite" of Eastern (and Western) Churches. And the term "Roman Catholic" is indeed undeniably in use today in ecumenical settings to refer to the whole Church of which Eastern Catholics are part. An official use of the term. Lima 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lima, what conversations are you referring to? "Immaterial"? Are you a lawyer? I removed the paragraph which obviously failed the NPOV test: "They thus reject the use of the terms "Roman Catholic" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the entire Catholic Church, in spite of the fact that this is the meaning of the term "Roman Catholic Church" in the papal encyclicals." You sound like you're trying to convict us or something. Dtbrown 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I referred to whatever conversations Dtbrown called "these conversations", perhaps wrongly presuming he referred to the Talk page. Anyway, let's just discuss the article. Lima 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lima, are you saying there is only one way to view that evidence about "Roman Catholic"? Have you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Roman Catholic"? Your edit will have to be modified to reflect other views and other statements from Church documents and I'm wondering if we're going too far afield here. Your edit also is unbalanced as it only presents one interpretation of this issue. Dtbrown 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"Contra factum non valet argumentum" is a centuries-old Latin adage: An argument has no force against a fact. It is a verified fact that the Church uses the name "Roman Catholic Church". Against that fact no argument that the Church does not use the name "Roman Catholic Church" can hold. I agree, of course, that the Church uses other names as well, many names. It is not I who am trying to limit the names to just one. Lima 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What this does not change is the sick pleasure Lima derives from taunting eastern catholics and reducing them to "imperfect" catholics who insist on keeping funny little oddities that the superior latins designate as "rites" in their misnamed substitute for a mass. Your track record is clear on this, such as you insisting on maintaining ethnic slurs like uniate in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.22.30 (talk • contribs)
See User talk:209.212.22.30, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Lima 11:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

miscellaneous

I am deleting the sentence stating that the distinction between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox is "impossible in most languages [other than English], as a quick look at the language links on the left of the article suggests quite the opposite. Other languages simply resort to other means to convey the same semantic distinction fr: orthodoxe / oriental-orthodoxe, with Spanish and Portuguese using the same system de: östlich-orthodox / altorientalisch-orthodox, or orthodox / orientalisch-orthodox (cf. fr) hr: pravoslavne / istočne pravoslavne (same as fr, es, pt...) ru: православный / древневосточный or восточный...

All languages linked to on the left of this article are able to make the distinction. As for the distinction not being universally accepted in English, it is probably a good idea to have a look at Talk:Oriental_Orthodoxy#About_the_term_"Oriental_Orthodox"

Philippe Magnabosco 09:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I changed the text of the article before reading this. (If the summary had said something like "See Talk", I would not have fallen into that trap.) What I have put may be far from the best, but I leave it for now. English has here an advantage of ambiguity that other languages lack. Philippe Magnabosco has drawn attention to articles in other languages (fr es po hr ru) in Wikipedia that reserve the word "orthodox" for the Eastern Orthodox: an Oriental Orthodox reader would say those articles violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule, since they give the point of view of the Eastern Orthodox, who, considering orthodoxy to require acceptance of seven ecumenical councils, see the Oriental Orthodox as not really orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox would retort that it is they who are really orthodox, since the Eastern Orthodox accept a council (that of Chalcedon) that the Oriental Orthodox view as heterodox. Lima 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have returned the Georgian Byzantine Rite Catholic information to this article because I believe it is worthy to note this instance here where the "sui juris" churches are listed. This group is not a "sui juris" church but has been listed in various places, mostly pre-Vatican II, as if it were.

69.68.167.247 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)A

First Section

In the first section, the monastic life of clergy in the United States and Poland are mentioned. However, this implies that the Eastern Rite churches are a significant population in these countries. It is probably particularly false for Poland, who's population is roughly 95% Roman Catholic, thus Latin Rite. Either the mention was misinformed, or it is a mention which succeeds in implying that Poland is a predominantely Eastern Rite country. I would think there are other countries with larger Eastern Rite populations with clergy that follow a monastic way of life that Poland which would at most have 1-2%, if that much. --24.91.40.69 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, this implies exactly the opposite. The Eastern rite population in the US is very small in proportion to the Latin rite, at least comparable to what you're saying for Poland. (My impulse would be to say Poland had more, but I don't know the current situation. See Operation Wisła.) A celibate clergy is not proper to the Eastern rite, and only occurs in territories where the rest of the Catholic hierarchy is overwhelmingly Latin rite, and impose celibacy on other rites for the sake of uniformity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopic/Ethiopian Church

Anyone care to comment at Talk:Ethiopian Catholic Church on the use of "Ethiopian Catholic Church" (a term that Eritreans reject) rather than "Ethiopic Catholic Church"? Lima 11:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Move Again?

Alright folks, I'm proposing moving the article to Eastern Catholic Churches. I'm an Eastern Catholic myself and I'm fed up of this article having the wrong name. InfernoXV 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Inferno, I'll support you on that proposal. As a fellow Eastern Catholic I know Eastern Catholic Church is the preferred term. However, I would suggest pulling together supporting citations before moving ahead. Do you have any material you can share which would help?
The proposed change is in no means meant to slight the Church of Rome. Eastern Catholic churches take pride in their communion with the Holy See. However, it's sad that, after two decades or so, some people don't understand the proper name for the Eastern Catholic Churches. Times have changed since Vatican II; the Vatican now prefers to refer to us as churches rather than rites.
In all fairness to many of the editors who have argued for keeping the term Eastern Rite in these articles, they have faced tremendous pressures from those who wish to circumscribe the Catholic Church.
I will start looking through my (admittedly slim) materials on the matter and I may try to make it over to the local theology library sometime in the next 4 to 6 weeks to research further. Please feel free to discuss further as needed. Majoreditor 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've done some looking into the matter. Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen [1] is quite clear on the matter. It uses the term "Church" rather than "Rite" throughout. Section 21 is quite clear on the matter; John Paul II refers to the "Eastern Catholic Churches".
Another point. The Vatican houses the Congregation for the Oriental [Eastern] Churches -- note the use of the term "Churches", not "Rite".
Other thoughts on the matter? Please share them here. Thanks. Majoreditor 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me help to find some more recent cites. This address by Cardinal Daoud to the Eastern Catholic Churches in the USA and Canada on October 31, 2006, uses "Eastern Catholic Churches" or "Eastern Churches" exclusively, never using the word "Rite". In this statement to the USCCB on November 15, 2005, Cardinal Daoud uses the terms "Oriental Churches" and "Catholic Eastern Churches", but again never uses the word "Rite". In this statement to the Catholic Bishops Conference of India on January 11, 2004, Cardinal Daoud refers to the "Oriental Churches in India", but only uses "rite" when discussing that there are churches of three rites operating in India, he does not refer to any of the churches as "Foo Rite Churches". In this speach on December 15, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI uses the term "Catholic Eastern Churches", but again, never the word "Rite". I think recent usage at the highest levels of the Church support moving the article to another title, without the word "Rite". Gentgeen (a Western Catholic) 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, look at the results from the straw poll in May/June 2006 [[2]] (highlighted in green). Four editors supported changing the name to Eastern Catholic Churches; only two opposed the move. No other option received such a high level of support. We are approaching consensus. Other comments? Majoreditor 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that the appropriate Catholic term is "Eastern Catholic Churches", but in the poll months ago concerns were expressed that this is a POV, and that the term has some similarity to Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches" had the same support (including Gentgeen and I), but more importantly, it had no opposition and made a tolerable compromise solution as second choice of the Eastern Catholics involved. Just a comment. Gimmetrow 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


So, to summarize the facts:
1. The entities in question currently refer to themselves as churches, not rites
2. During the Vatican II era they were often refered to as rites
3. Since the papacy of John Paul II the Holy See has refered to them as churches, not rites
4. Benedict XVI refers to them as churches, not rites
5. Vatican-based institutions refer to them as churches -- most notably in the naming of the Congregation for the Oriental [Eastern] Churches
6. Currently both terms are used outside the Vatican
7. Some churches which aren't in communion with the See of Rome may use the term "Catholic" in their title, either occasionally or frequently.
Have I ommitted any major facts?
Gimmetrow, thanks for explaining how the editors participating in the straw poll arrived at the compromise.
Other facts or comments? Majoreditor 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be Eastern Catholic Churches and not Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. This is our current self-designation. Dtbrown 14:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on recent comments I believe we have a consensus for Eastern Catholic Churches and recommend changing the name.
The article should mention that the term "Rite" was used extensively until recent years. Thanks to Lima and others who have documented the historic use of the term. Majoreditor 17:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Very well explained. Dtbrown 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED (by Gentgeen) per discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches — consensus reached on move: 5 editors support, none oppose. Please see discussion for details Majoreditor 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) - discussion area created by SigPig |SEND - OVER 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. I had always termed the Eastern Churches as "rites"; I did not know the term was received with offence. I had been brought up that there was the one Catholic Church, of which there were the different rites (i.e. Latin, Byzantine, etc). Go fig. That being said...Support. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Majoreditor 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, as I stated when the question was last discussed. Lima 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. This is my preferred title for the article in question. Gentgeen 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. I don't recall anyone not in communion with Rome using the term 'Eastern Catholic', certainly the Assyrian Church doesn't. "Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Churches" is inaccurate and offensive, "Roman Catholic Churches of the East" doesn't make any sense as that could easily mean the RCC of Japan or China. This hasn't been a one-day survey, but has been an ongoing thing for a very long time now. InfernoXV 08:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    The requested move appears to have been made on 17 February. Fishhead64 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    There was discussion prior to 17 February, and move requests are normally discussed for about a week after listing at WP:RM. Also, please note Wikipedia:Canvassing. Gimmetrow 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Noted, and I trust you're not suggesting that soliciting input from editors with an interest in this topic constitutes disruptive canvassing. In my opinion, it does not. Fishhead64 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support — The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity calls its article 'Eastern Catholic', with the introduction "Generic term used to designate Christians in full communion with Rome who belong to one or other of the Eastern rites". As you can see, the word 'rite' is employed. In places where there are churches of similar rite, one of which is in communion with Rome, the other not, the word catholic is used unambiguously to describe the former. Technically, any church that traces its origin unbroken to the early church can call itself catholic. However, in practice, to avoid ambiguity, the word is used to describe a church in communion with Rome. — Gareth Hughes 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose, since there are Eastern Catholic churches which are not in communion with Rome (e.g., the Assyrian Church of the East). A more precise term would be "Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Churches," or, perhaps, "Roman Catholic Churches of the East." The current move suggestion enshrines a denominational POV, imo, but everyone knows this is a particular hobby horse of mine, and I'm likely a voice crying in the wilderness. Finally, a one day survey is a little early to declare a decision. Fishhead64 07:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

We've had good input over the past three weeks. Is there any more discussion? Majoreditor 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question of Latin terminology

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

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)

Official Name of the Catholic Church

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 (talk • contribs)

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 theNicene 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)


East-West Schism causes

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. [3] 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)

Dr Mindbender's reversion

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"[4] (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)

False quotation

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)

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eastern Catholic Churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eastern Catholic Churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Catholic_Churches/Archive_2&oldid=1156574716"