www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Origin of term - Latin Church

Can anyone point me to the early church documents of reference where the term 'Latin Church' or patriarchate or Rite - is used??

I am trying to determine why it is called that. It appears to me right now to have been called that in a way meaning 'everywhere the influence of the Roman Empire held sway' but more in a sense of everywhere that the Lating language of Rome was used as a universal language (like English is today).

Alex do you have that anywhere in your library like mind?

-ray

Dear Ray,

Slava Isusu Krystu!

This is from the EWTN Q&A board:
-The Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the world and the Patriarchal See of Western Christianity.... and the source of a family of Rites in the West.... After the Council of Trent it was necessary to consolidate liturgical doctrines and practice in the face of the Reformation. Thus, Pope St. Pius V imposed the Rite of Rome on the Latin Church (that subject to him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West), allowing only smaller Western Rites with hundreds of years of history to ramain. Younger Rites of particular dioceses or regions ceased to exist.

So, the use of the "Latin Church" is to describe the whole Western Church and the Roman Catholic Church is to pertain to those whose use the Roman rite. Though these two are used interchangably now a days.

Slava Na Viki!
eumir

Dear ad orientam:

Yes. I see. And I also thank Tony for some good info also.

So apparently the divisions begin like this... (?)

Universal Catholic Church
Eastern Church / Latin Church

and then the Eastern and Latin are futher subdivided into regions (?) and then into the particular churches in each region (?).

That is what it seems to me so far. A 'tree'.

I am learning.

Thanks.

-ray

The term "Latin Church" is used in the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law.

Cf. Canon No. 1
"Can. 1 - Canones huius Codicis unam Ecclesiam latinam respiciunt."

i.e. "Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church."

Herb

Hello,

No, there is no juridical entity called "Eastern Church"

If you are willing to talk about "Eastern Churches" (plural, because there is more than one), then the corresponding term would be "Western", although there is only one Sui-Iuris Western Church namely, the Latin Church.

The Latin Church is at the same level as the other 22 Sui Iuris Churches we are in communion with.

The Latin Church is headed by the Bishop of Rome in his capacity of Patriarch of the West and strictly speaking, the Latin Church is made of eclessiastic circumscriptions each one headed by Local Ordinaries.

The typical eclessiastic circumscription is the Diocese, but we also have other kinds of circumscriptions like the Archdiocese (which is the principal Diocese within a Province, which itself is simply a grouping of circumpscriptions), the Prelature (something that works like a Diocese but is not quite there yet), the Apostolic Administration (something the Pope wants to watch very closely, without delegating full episcopal authority to a Local Ordinary), the Territoral Abbey, etc.

Above the eclessiastic circumscription there is only administrative authorities, which are very limited, like the one the Metropolitan Archbishop has over his suffragan dioceses, or like the one the Conference of Bishops has over its member circumscriptions.

In the East it is somewhat like that, although in some Eastern Churches, the authority of the Metropolitan over his suffragans is stronger.

Each Eastern Sui Iuris Church is headed by either a Patriarch, a Major Archbishop or a Metropolitan Archbishop.

Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are almost the same. In the East, they are always the canonical head if their Sui Iuris Church, which means that if one Church as a Patriarch, it won't have a Major Archbishop nor vice-versa. The only difference is that a Patriarch's election is valid from the moment the synod elects him, which a Major Archbishop needs confirmation from the Pope before his election is canonically valid.

Patriarchs and Major Archbishops may have Metropolitans under their authority.

A Metropolitan who is canonial head of a Sui Iuris Chruch has, as such, real jurisdiction over the other hierarchs os his Church, in addition to the regular functions a Meotropolitan performs with his suffragans.

Eclessiastic circumscriptions have different names in the East, but they are roughly equivalent to their Western counterparts.

Diocese=Eparchy
Archdiocese=Archeparchy
Prelature=Exarchate

I hope you find this useful.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo,

just to clarify- what you term "eclessiastic circumscription", the Church terms "Particular Church."

From the CIC, canon 368:

"Particular churches in which and from which exist the one and unique Catholic Church are first of all dioceses; to which unless otherwise evident are likened a territorial pelature, a territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate, an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration which has been erected on a stable basis."

In the East, a "particular church" describes indivudual sui juris Churches (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum), as well as, the eparchy or diocese.

Hello,

Thank you for the clarification Fr. Deacon John.

I've also seen "eclessiastic circumscription" used officially, and I avoided "Particular Church" on purpose, precisely because its meaning in the East is ambiguous and therefore, confusing.

Thanks again.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear RayK,

The way I understand it is that the term "Roman Church" could once be applied to the universal, undivided Church of Christ.

To be a "Roman" or a "Romaios" or member of the "Rhoum Millet," meant that one was "Orthodox" in faith, belonged to the "Catholic Church" with the Patriarchs of Old Rome and New Rome as the firsts among equals.

The culture and languages of the "Rhoum" were both Latin and Greek.

After the split of 1054, whenever Old Rome and New Rome saw each other as being "out of communion with the accepted faith and traditions," they called each other by the partialized names of "Latins" and "Greeks."

For the East to call the West "Latin" implied that the West was somehow failing to participate in the universal religious and cultural identity and tradition of the Church. The same occurred when Old Rome called the New Roman/Byzantine East "Greeks."

The formal cultural alienation went hand-in-hand with the religious estrangement, as you know, by the time Cardinal Humbertus slapped the personal excommunication against Patriarch Michael in St Sophia - the Byzantines had to get someone to translate the document since they no longer spoke Latin and vice-versa.

Alex

Alex,

Apparently, even the translators misunderstood the respective cultural developments of the East and the West. For a deeper insight regarding this unfortunate development please review the following report:

Schism of 1054 [theoniondome.com]

Dear Father Deacon,

So this is so-to-call-it report on "schism?"

You mean those heretical schismatics in Rome, no?

Is outrage!

Alex

Dear Alex,

I think there are a few ancient, apostolic Churches which would object to the claim:

"the term 'Roman Church' could once be applied to the universal, undivided Church of Christ."

Some of our Churches have never been an integral part of the Imperial, Roman Church, yet were/are still part of the Church of Christ.

Ghazar

The most precise history yet!

I am glad I did not miss this link altogether.



-ray

Dear Ghazar,

Once again, I ding myself on this issue!

Yes, I was referring to the "Roman" Church understood as "Rome/Byzantium" only . . .

Alex