"Roman"

[Peter J]

This question may or may not be worth devoting a thread to, but what the heck (as it were). I've been wondering why the word "Roman" is used interchangeably with "Western".

A good example is the description at the top of this forum: Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

[JamesRottnek]

I don't think it is used to replace "Western."  If that were the case, why would the description be "Roman/Eastern Catholic churches?"  I, at least, use "Roman" to describe the organization under Pope Benedict XVI and those who are in communion with him.  I use "Western" in a variety of ways, chiefly to describe the Roman church, the various Protestant groups, and (when talking about pre-schism times) the Western Church.  I use "Western," for example, when talking about legalism as it relates to Christianity.

"Roman," however, I use (unless talking about the city, the Empire, or the adjective form of the city) to describe solely the church headquartered in Vatican City.

[ialmisry]

This question may or may not be worth devoting a thread to, but what the heck (as it were). I've been wondering why the word "Roman" is used interchangeably with "Western".

A good example is the description at the top of this forum: Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

Rome was the Patriarchate of the West.

[WetCatechumen]

This question may or may not be worth devoting a thread to, but what the heck (as it were). I've been wondering why the word "Roman" is used interchangeably with "Western".

A good example is the description at the top of this forum: Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

Rome was the Patriarchate of the West.

And New Rome was the usurping Patriarchate of the East.

Eastern Orthodoxy is a Roman religion, as is Roman Catholicism. Oriental Orthodoxy is not Roman like we dyophysites.

[ialmisry]

This question may or may not be worth devoting a thread to, but what the heck (as it were). I've been wondering why the word "Roman" is used interchangeably with "Western".

A good example is the description at the top of this forum: Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

Rome was the Patriarchate of the West.

And New Rome was the usurping Patriarchate of the East.

1) It was not the Patriarch of the East, which was/is Antioch. 2) Besides Constantinople and Antioch, the East Roman Empire contained also the Patriarchate of Alexandria and that of Jerusalem. 3) At worst, New Rome was an upstart, but it was never a usurper, as its authority was not derived unconstitutionally.

Eastern Orthodoxy is a Roman religion, as is Roman Catholicism. Oriental Orthodoxy is not Roman like we dyophysites.

Alexandria and Antioch were the 2nd and 3rd cities of the Roman Empire.

[Irish Hermit]

Peter has taught through the august lips of Pope Pius XII:

"If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ"..."

from "Mystici Corporis Christi"
promulgated 1943.

[pensateomnia]

Peter has taught through the august lips of Pope Pius XII:

"If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ"..."

from "Mystici Corporis Christi"

But he wrote that encyclical to co-opt a movement in French Catholic theology! 

[Irish Hermit]

Peter has taught through the august lips of Pope Pius XII:

"If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ"..."

from "Mystici Corporis Christi"

But he wrote that encyclical to co-opt a movement in French Catholic theology! 

No problem.  In the Vatican-speak of that time 'Roman' equals 'Universal.'  The official way of speaking of what are now 'autonomous' Eastern Churches was, for example, 'The Melkite Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.'

[scamandrius]

Interestingly enough, if you go to the Middle East, the Roman Church refers not to a Roman Catholic Church but to an Eastern Orthodox Church.  To go to a Roman Catholic parish, you have to search for the Latin Church.

[Peter J]

One fact that is often forgotten/neglected is that the Roman Rite is in fact only one of several Western rites (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.). Granted, it is the most commonly used, especially since the Council of Trent.

[Peter J]

I don't think it is used to replace "Western."  If that were the case, why would the description be "Roman/Eastern Catholic churches?" 

I believe  "Roman/Eastern Catholic" is simply a concise way of saying "Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic".

[celticfan1888]

This question may or may not be worth devoting a thread to, but what the heck (as it were). I've been wondering why the word "Roman" is used interchangeably with "Western".

A good example is the description at the top of this forum: Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

I think it basically came from the fact that the "Western" world is traditionally Roman Catholic, where as the "East" is traditionally Orthodox Catholic.

[xariskai]

And then there are historian Fr. John Romanidies'  (PhD University of Athens, also educated at Yale, etc) controversial[1] claims about the Frankish takeover of Western Latin Catholic Christianity, enslavement of the Orthodox Western populace (which he actually compares to the atrocities perpetuated in Cambodia by Pol Pot), replacement of Western Catholic bishops -many of whom were executed- with Frankish military and political leaders, and within a couple of centuries, the papal office itself...

According to Fr. John this constituted the fountainhead of the loss of much that was "Roman Christian" culturally, intellectually, and religiously (not to mention Orthodox) in the Latin West.

"Gone was now the Patriarchate of Elder Rome which had been forcefully captured by the Franks, Lombards, Germans and with the help of the Normans. This struggle began in intensity in 983 and was consummated in 1009-1046. After 1045 the Popes of Rome, except for Benedict X (1058-9), were no longer Romans, but members of the Franco-Latin nobility who enslaved the Roman population. At the time of the Revolution of 1789 the Gallo-Roman slave population of France was 85 % of the total."  http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.00.en.some_underlying_positions_of_this_website.htm

The development of major theological emphases which differed from first millennium Catholic (Orthodox) consensus, e.g. nature/grace dualism, replacement of the therapeutic model by legal/merit/satisfaction soteriology (leading to the Reformation), rationalist/foundationalist ways to God grounded upon autonomous human reason (leading to the Enlightenment and the Death of God in Western philosophy), origin of papal supremacy beginning in the middle ages etc. were viewed by Fr. John as consequences stemming from the shift of Old Rome from Roman to Frankish (though Roman in name) socially/culturally/politically after the conquest.

Any thoughts on Fr. John's theories about the Frankish conquest of Old Rome here? It's probably worth a thread of its own actually...
___________________
[1]"Romanides contributed many speculations, some controversial, into the cultural and religious differences between Eastern and Western Christianity, and how these divergences have impacted the ways in which Christianity has developed and been lived out in the Christian cultures of East and West." -wiki (i.e. it's wiki, take anything it ever tells you about anything with a grain of salt ;-)

[Cavaradossi]

One fact that is often forgotten/neglected is that the Roman Rite is in fact only one of several Western rites (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.). Granted, it is the most commonly used, especially since the Council of Trent.

I think that may have to do with the limited nature of those rites. Most of the obscure Western Rites are only used in the area where they originated. But certainly it is improper to refer to the Roman Rite as the Western Rite. With that aside, I think it has to do with two things: firstly, the fact that there is only one sui iuris Church in the West and that is the Latin Church and secondly, that there is a heavy emphasis on communion with Rome being the primary marker of whether you are a member of the Catholic Church or not. For example, if Church X made an agreement with Rome and entered into full communion with Rome, then the rest of the sui iuris churches in the Catholic Church would have to accept Rome's decision (one might also make the astute observation that full communion with Rome, not any other sui iuris church is the only possible way for Church X to join the Catholic Church). This Rome-centric model is probably what leads to monikers like Orthodox (in communion with Rome). A good practical example would be to look at the fact that there exists both a sui iuris Coptic Patriarchate and a sui iuris Greek Patriarchate within the Catholic Church. Normally, their Christological differences would keep them out of full communion (like the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox), but through their common communion with Rome (and presumably some better understanding which allows them to keep their unique Christological views yet also affirm that they are both speaking of the same truth), they too are in full communion. I would say that the interchangeability of "Roman" and "Western" comes from primarily from those two facts.

[ialmisry]

And then there are historian Fr. John Romanidies'  (PhD University of Athens, also educated at Yale, etc) controversial[1] claims about the Frankish takeover of Western Latin Catholic Christianity, enslavement of the Orthodox Western populace (which he actually compares to the atrocities perpetuated in Cambodia by Pol Pot), replacement of Western Catholic bishops -many of whom were executed- with Frankish military and political leaders, and within a couple of centuries, the papal office itself...

According to Fr. John this constituted the fountainhead of the loss of much that was "Roman Christian" culturally, intellectually, and religiously (not to mention Orthodox) in the Latin West.

"Gone was now the Patriarchate of Elder Rome which had been forcefully captured by the Franks, Lombards, Germans and with the help of the Normans. This struggle began in intensity in 983 and was consummated in 1009-1046. After 1045 the Popes of Rome, except for Benedict X (1058-9), were no longer Romans, but members of the Franco-Latin nobility who enslaved the Roman population. At the time of the Revolution of 1789 the Gallo-Roman slave population of France was 85 % of the total."  http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.00.en.some_underlying_positions_of_this_website.htm

The development of major theological emphases which differed from first millennium Catholic (Orthodox) consensus, e.g. nature/grace dualism, replacement of the therapeutic model by legal/merit/satisfaction soteriology (leading to the Reformation), rationalist/foundationalist ways to God grounded upon autonomous human reason (leading to the Enlightenment and the Death of God in Western philosophy), origin of papal supremacy beginning in the middle ages etc. were viewed by Fr. John as consequences stemming from the shift of Old Rome from Roman to Frankish (though Roman in name) socially/culturally/politically after the conquest.

Any thoughts on Fr. John's theories about the Frankish conquest of Old Rome here? It's probably worth a thread of its own actually...
___________________
[1]"Romanides contributed many speculations, some controversial, into the cultural and religious differences between Eastern and Western Christianity, and how these divergences have impacted the ways in which Christianity has developed and been lived out in the Christian cultures of East and West." -wiki (i.e. it's wiki, take anything it ever tells you about anything with a grain of salt ;-)

Don't we have a thread on Fr. John?  If we don't, we should.

I little extreme, but grounded on a number of facts.

[James2]

Anglo-Catholics have often employed "Western" as a code word for "Roman", since it would raise fewer hackles amongst Evangelicals and Latitudinarians than the R-word.

[orthonorm]

Rome was used in my church growing up to refer to the City of Seven Hills whence the False Prophet, the Pope, would arise and serve the Anti-Christ.

I think it was also the Seven-Headed Beast.

Pretty much anything Roman was bad. In Bible School we sang songs mocking RCs.

Good times that ol' Religion.

[Peter J]

Anglo-Catholics have often employed "Western" as a code word for "Roman"

Interesting, but I'm having trouble imagining that.

[James2]

Anglo-Catholics have often employed "Western" as a code word for "Roman"

Interesting, but I'm having trouble imagining that.

I think the idea was to distinguish between the "English" use (Sarum and the successive Books of Common Prayer) and the "Western" use (the Counter-Reformation Roman liturgy).  Of course, Sarum itself was a use of the medieval Roman rite.  Some Anglo-Catholics wanted to emphasize a distinctive English liturgical tradition, while others ("Anglican Papalists") looked to contemporary Roman practice as the liturgical norm.  A good read on this is Anglican Papalism by Michael Yelton.

Apparently the continuing Anglicans still employ the "Western" for "Roman" terminology - see this site: 
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/05/prayer-book-catholic-vs-missal-catholic.html

[Peter J]

Anglo-Catholics have often employed "Western" as a code word for "Roman"

Interesting, but I'm having trouble imagining that.

I think the idea was to distinguish between the "English" use (Sarum and the successive Books of Common Prayer) and the "Western" use (the Counter-Reformation Roman liturgy).  Of course, Sarum itself was a use of the medieval Roman rite.  Some Anglo-Catholics wanted to emphasize a distinctive English liturgical tradition, while others ("Anglican Papalists") looked to contemporary Roman practice as the liturgical norm.  A good read on this is Anglican Papalism by Michael Yelton.

Apparently the continuing Anglicans still employ the "Western" for "Roman" terminology - see this site: 
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/05/prayer-book-catholic-vs-missal-catholic.html

Thanks, that helps.

[celticfan1888]

Anglo-Catholics have often employed "Western" as a code word for "Roman"

Interesting, but I'm having trouble imagining that.

I've heard it first hand.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: "Roman"