Question for Branch Theorists

[Filia Mariae]

I have a question for those of you who subscribe to the branch theory.

My assumption is that the Oxford Movement/early branch theorists did not think much about the Eastern Catholic churches (Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, etc), because they probably had little to no contact with Eastern Catholics at that time in history, society being far less mobile.

However, given that some contemporary Anglicans do still hold to the branch theory, I was wondering where you place Eastern Catholic churches. As in, what branch?

Would you desire the addition of a fourth branch for them? Would you place them in what you understand to be the Roman Catholic branch despite the fact that they do not share Latin culture or customs? Or would you place them with the Orthodox even though they are in communion with the Holy See?

Also, does anyone know is scholarship or writing has been done on this?

Thanks.:)

Pax Christi.

[Fish and Bread]

Any church that the Pope recognizes as being part of his juristiction and which in turn believes in, obeys, and is adminstered by the Pope, is Roman Catholic, in my view. Thus, the "Eastern Catholics" are really no less Roman Catholic than those western RCC parishes that celebrate the old latin mass by special indult. It's a different liturgy, but it's the same denomination. The Eastern Orthodox generally agree with me, considering the "Eastern Catholics" to be fully Roman Catholic and not a part of the Eastern Orthodox faith.

John

[PaladinValer]

Eastern Rites are still of the Vatican Church. Same branch.

[Filia Mariae]

Eastern Rites are still of the Vatican Church. Same branch.

I agree that the Eastern Rites are absolutely Catholic. My question is, I guess, to what do you use the modifier "Roman" to refer to then, since it does not refer to that Rite of the church based on Roman culture/ethnicity/tradition?

[pmcleanj]

I agree that the Eastern Rites are absolutely Catholic. My question is, I guess, to what do you use the modifier "Roman" to refer to then, since it does not refer to that Rite of the church based on Roman culture/ethnicity/tradition?
It refers to the notion that the Bishop of Rome holds authority over other Bishops.

[gtsecc]

Eastern Rite changes nothing.
All we are trying to do is say they are part of which communion.

[SirTimothy]

It refers to the notion that the Bishop of Rome holds authority over other Bishops.

Precisely. I was going to say it much less politely, but decided your way was better. :)

Timothy

[AngCath]

I agree that the Eastern Rites are absolutely Catholic. My question is, I guess, to what do you use the modifier "Roman" to refer to then, since it does not refer to that Rite of the church based on Roman culture/ethnicity/tradition?

Roman is in reference to authority. If a Catholic of any rite (Latin, Maronite, Coptic...) is under the Bishop of Rome then that Catholic is a Roman Catholic.

[gitlance]

A Catholic who is in communion with Rome is a Roman Catholic (this includes the eastern rite Catholics). A Catholic who is in communion with Constantinople or one of the other ancient Eastern sees is an Eastern Orthodox Catholic. A Catholic in communion with Canterbury is an English Catholic.There are three great centers of the Church today: Rome, Canterbury, and Constantinople (as well as the other ancient sees of the Eastern Church). Those in communion with them are all validly Catholic.

[Philip]

The Eastern Orthodox generally agree with me, considering the "Eastern Catholics" to be fully Roman Catholic and not a part of the Eastern Orthodox faith.


Yes, Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox.

There are three great centers of the Church today: Rome, Canterbury, and Constantinople.

The are several Orthodox patriarchs who might object to being left off this list.

[PaladinValer]

I believe, Philip, that Gitlance is simply pointing to Constantinople since the Ecumenical Patriarch (currently +++Bartholomew II) is the first among equals in your church. and thus could be considered the "leader" of your church just like +++Williams is the "leader" of our's.

If I am mistaken, by all means please correct me.

[AngCath]

Yes, we can't forget Shenouda in Alexandria.

[pmcleanj]

The are several Orthodox patriarchs who might object to being left off this list.
Not to mention those Anglicans who are not technically in communion with Canterbury but are part of the Anglican "branch" through their historical alignment with Canterbury (including the TAC and the REC); and certainly not to leave out our good friends of Utrecht!

(not to imply that I am a branch theorist; but if I were I would include these groups with their historical and cultural alignments)

[PaladinValer]

I would include:

1. Anglicans (various)
2. Vatican Catholics
3. Old Catholics (various)
4. Oriental Orthodox
5. Eastern Orthodox
6. Certain Lutheran and Moravian bodies