Talk:Latin Rite

Needs work
We need an actual article here. Any takers? Wesley

I put it on Pages_needing_attention/Religion. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The link http://www.catholictradition.org/v2-bombs15.htm for Liturgical Time Bombs is no longer valid. Dark Nexus 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
Sonria has suggested that Latin Church be merged here.

I support fully. Lima 04:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge done, as it had already been proposed on the "Latin Church" Talk page. Lima 04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but the 1983 Code of Canon Law refers to the Western Church as the Latin Church, NOT the Latin rite. Rite refers to liturgy, not to ecclesiastical polity. I suggest merging this article into the Latin Church article.--FidesetRatio 02:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True. However, the word "Rite" has been very widely used, not only of liturgical rites, but also of what the 1983 Code prefers to call autonomous ritual Churches (Ecclesiae rituales sui iuris).  One important case of this usage is in the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum, section 2, which speaks of them as "particular Churches or rites."


 * FidesetRatio's proposal is that "Latin Rite" be moved to "Latin Church". No objection on my part, provided someone (FidesetRatio?) undertakes the task of changing the approximately 250 links from other articles to "Latin Rite", so that they point to "Latin Church" and no longer, as at present, to "Latin Rite" (with upper-case R).  I think we should avoid the untidiness of redirects, especially double ones.  Lima 08:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rite v. Church (Latin Rite v. Latin Church)
Although there is much confusion in the Wiki-verse about Catholic terminology, it really is not that confused in the real world. This article and general usage need to be clear on which we are talking about: the Latin/Roman Rite or the Latin/Roman Church sui iuris. The article titles need to clearly distinguish this as well (ref. "merge" conversation above). Latin Rite and Latin Church are two different things.

Accoding to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches (CCEO), the definitions are:

' Church: A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris''. CCEO 27'''

''' Rite: A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris. CCEO 28.1'''

In other words - you belong to a church; you worship according to a particular rite.

Please keep this distinction clear in editing, and in naming articles. Is this one meant to be about the particular church sui iuris? Then it is Latin (Catholic) Church or Roman (Catholic) Church. If it is about the worship style and tradition of the Roman Missal, then it is Latin Rite, or Roman Rite (ref. conversation on Latin v. Roman below).

Thanks! Protoclete (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin Church OR Roman Church
I would propose something altogether different. Why is not the "Latin Church" called the "Roman Church"? We never spoke about the "Latin Missal." It was always the "Roman Missal." In other words, we used the Roman Missal for the Latin rite. In the West, we still use the Roman Missal, although it is no longer in Latin.

As it is, when we type Roman Church we get redirected to the Roman Catholic Church. This is wrong. The Roman Church is not what Wikipedia understands to the the Roman Catholic Church. Wikipedia understands The Roman Catholic Church to be that which Catholics would call the Catholic Church. (I know, I know, Wikipedia doesn't want to offend Protestants who believe that they are part of some mythical, imaginary catholic church. But the Church of Rome--the Church in communion with the See of Rome--was always the Catholic Church. )

If we were to name the Latin Church as the Roman Church we could be a start in clearing up this mess in terminology. The church under the pope is the Catholic Church. The Roman Church (ie, the Roman Catholic Church) is one of the constituent churches of the Catholic Church.

As things stand, with Roman Catholic as the overall term, a Maronite Catholic, for example, is now implicitly a Maronite Roman Caholic. This is silly, illogical, and maybe even offensive. A Maronite Catholic is a member of the Catholic Church. A Maronite Catholic is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

A member of the Roman Church is a member of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic and Catholic are separate terms.

Perhaps other Eastern-rite Catholics can join in the debate. Perhaps they, too, can say they are offended with being called "Roman Catholics."

Dakno 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Roman Missal is so called because it is the Missal for the Roman Rite, which is one, and only one, of the Latin liturgical rites in use within the Latin particular Church. The Archdiocese of Milan is part of the Latin Rite or Church, but it uses the Ambrosian Rite and the Ambrosian Missal, not the Roman Rite and the Roman Missal.
 * What official document (not just unsourced opinions expressed on Web sites or elsewhere) can Dakno produce in support of his contention that the Catholic Church and what is called the Roman Catholic Church are not one and the same thing? There are official documents that say the opposite.  I am about to mention two examples.
 * If Maronite Christians are to accept Dakno's contention that that they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church (in this broad sense), what are they to make of Pope Pius XII's declaration: "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing"? And of Pope Pius XI's equation of "the Holy Roman Catholic Church" with "the City of God"?
 * Apart from its broad sense, "the Roman Catholic Church" can also mean the Catholic Church in the diocese or city of Rome, as "the Warsaw Catholic Church" can mean the Catholic Church in the diocese or city of Warsaw. But in this narrow local sense the "Roman Catholic Church" is only part of the Latin Church.  It is not the same thing as the Latin Church  Lima 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree that the popes have often used "Roman Catholic" and "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church" interchangeably with "Catholic Church." This was more apparent before the Second Vatican Council (and your two quotes are from Pius XII) and it might reflect a bit of Italo-Romano bias on the part of the church’s magisterium at the time.

The Code of Canon Law (from 1983) refers to the Church variously as the "Catholic Church," "The Universal Church" or the "Church of Christ."

As for the term Roman Church, the old Catholic encyclopedia (which seems appropriate for basic definitions) states that Roman Church and Latin Church are the same thing.

The Portuguese version of the Catholic Church wikipedia article explicitly states that the Latin Church is the Roman Catholic Church.

It seems that I am not the only one making this mistake.

As for the “Maronite Christians,” it is true that they are Christians, but they have always been known was Maronite Catholics. My point is that if we call the Universal Church the Roman Catholic Church, then we have to designate them as “Maronite Catholic Roman Catholics. “ This is plain wrong. Dakno 03:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not making myself clear. I do not say that we should speak of Maronites as Maronite Catholic Roman Catholics or even as Maronite Roman Catholics.  I only say that Maronite Catholics are members of the Roman Catholic Church in the sense in which this is understood in the quoted papal documents of some decades ago (still the same Church), in many present-day joint declarations signed with non-Catholic Churches, etc. Maronites are not members of the Roman Catholic Church in the sense of "Catholic Church in Rome" (from which they boast never to have been out of communion).  Nor is there any official document (the Portuguese Wikipedia does not count as one) that declares that the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Catholic Church are one and the same thing.  Lima 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lima, as a Catholic I appreciate your strong defense. "Roman Catholic" is not a prejorative ,& about 20 % of the parishes in my city use it in their titles.

The fact that the name was bestowed by the Anglicans centuries ago does not make it invalid. Remember that it was a 'term of equity'. Diminutives should not be used against other Christians,IMHO." Catholic" means universal,& includes all believing Christians. Opuscalgary 16:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" in Church documents
" '''Relationship with the term "Roman Catholic

Some treat the term "Roman Catholic" as synonymous with "Latin Rite", a usage not found in official documents of the Catholic Church itself, such as the encyclicals Divini illius Magistri and Humani generis, in which "Roman Catholic Church" means the whole Catholic Church without distinction. Pope John Paul II too treated "Roman Catholic Church " as equivalent to "Catholic Church" in his talk at the general audience of 26 June 1985.[5]''' "

First and foremost. This section of the article is highly inappropriate and merely a commentary that does not belong in this article.

The commentary " is an overt contradiction of Catholic Teaching and a direct disrespect to the "some" which represents the world's 1.1 billion Catholics (yes, I am aware there are a few which call themselves Roman Catholic). The usage of such term as cited aboves is merely representing the Catholic Church headquarted in the city of Rome. No more a advocation of such a term as saying the "United States headquarted in the District of Columbia", suddenly implicating that because of such a statement one can now call the America- Columbia America.  Roman Catholic IS synoymous with simply the Latin Rite, just as Byzantine Catholic, both of the Catholic Church, are also know as Greek Catholics.

The above quotes are all out of context and or informal statements ill representing the Church's position. In both of the encyclicals provided, "Roman Catholic" is but mentioned once, whereas Catholic Church or just "The Church" are mentioned at least 40:1 or more. Not to mention the fact, that this descriptive term mentioned has been added to the name of the Church but a very few times over its nearly 2000 year history. The author has evidently disected Church data to find some kind (countable with his own hands) what would appear as support for his agenda.

If such matterial is allowable in Wikipedia... why would not the Catholic notion on the matter be represented as well. This has got to be removed or we can be opening a huge can of worms involving the article itself.

Thank you. Micael 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Its been nearly a year since I made the above post regarding the inappropriateness of this section of the main article and not a single action or reply has been received. Don't know how this works, but can someone please inform me what is the next step in removing such a commentary from this article.

The presumpive ingnorance of the author is evident- equating the Church's rare, but occational usage of the adjective "Roman" to its common name   "Catholic Church"   (ie, the title of the Catechism is not the CRCC, but the CCC) is simply geographic description not meant to be used as a title. Or for that matter to to be confused with simply ONE of 21 other Rites of the Cathlolic Church, namely the Latin Rite(a.k.a. the Roman rite). A rite recognized as no more or less than any of the other Rites. This is exemplified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church's description of where a Catholic can meet their weekly Sunday Mass(Divine Liturgy) obligation, where it states clearly it is satisfied by going to ANY rite Latin (of which Roman is its main, but not exclusive sub-rite), Byzantine or otherwise so much as it is CATHOLIC, period. Paragraphy 1203 clearly states:


 * The liturgical traditions or RITES presently in use in the Church are the  Latin   (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) AND the  Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean Rites . In "faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of EQUAL right and dignityItalic text, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."(emphasis added)

Thus, showing the blantant error of the author of the aforementioned commentary in utilizing a Pope's descriptive/geografic term Roman- to the common reference of the Universal Church and confusing it as an excuse to utilize it as an accepted title for the entire Church...a title offically used exclusively for the predominant liturgical Rite of the Latin Rite, the Roman Cathoilc rite/church.

versus

Micael (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed here in edit summaries and at length elsewhere, too. Your interpretation is against both Vatican usage and consensus here. The Eastern Catholic Churches object to being refered to simply as a "Rite" and are in fact 22 seperate bodies in union with the Western Catholic Church - making up as a whole the Roman Catholic Church. -- Secisek (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem by far is well beyond my legit statement made above where those outside the Catholic Church IMPOSE there own definitions- IS THAT this section of the the main article does not belong in anything called an encyclopedia. IT IS WRITTEN AS A COMMENTARY, it is essentially highly DEBATABLE and thus aguementative, and would not be tolerated anywhere as part of any article. Micael (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The usage of the Popes should surely be good enough for us. I don't think it has been imposed on them from outside.  Lima (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WRONG, Lima. That does not legitimize anything it is simply twisting the meaning of the Pope's writtings into agreeing with a personal interpretation. REGARDLESS as I said it is a COMMENTARY inappropriate for usage as part of any main article. THAT IS THE ISSUE, period.Micael (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The writings of the Popes (plural) say: "In the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing"; "The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing"; "Within Christianity there is the Catholic (Roman Catholic) Church and the Orthodox Church or Churches, whose historical centre is in Constantinople". (The emphases are mine.)  In what way have these writings been twisted?  Does anyone think the Popes meant that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the City of God, not part of the Mystical Body of Christ?  Lima (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LIMA, the crux of the COMMENTARY is NOT whether the Church calls itself RCC vs CC. But instead, it questions the very fact that the Church refers to its LATIN Rite as the "Roman Rite". Implicating this as if it were some kind of falacy...as if there was not a subsection of the Church which refers to the Latin Rite as the Roman Catholic Rite. Read carefully, "Some treat the term "Roman Catholic" as synonymous with "Latin Rite". So he is saying that calling someone a Roman Catholic WITHIN the Church CAN NOT simply implicate just someone of the Latin Rite (and TWIST the Pope's writtings into suporting his position). DO YOU agree with this conclusion?  And AGAIN, the problem is that it is a COMMENTARY, inappropriate in a main article REGARDLESS of the topic.Micael (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Micael, whatever some members of the Church may have done, I know of no documents in which the Church has called its Latin Rite (which is a particular Church, not a liturgical rite) the "Roman Rite" (a term that properly refers to a liturgical rite). The statements in the section that you have removed, and that must now be restored, is no more commentary than any of the other sourced statements in the article.  Nothing in them is twisted.  Sourced statement 1 in the section is that some people do treat the term "Roman Catholic" as synonymous with "Latin-Rite Catholic".  This is undeniable.  The other main sourced statement is that official documents of the Catholic Church use "Roman Catholic" to refer to the Church as a whole.  This too is undeniable.  Will it satisfy you if we specify that there are Catholics who treat the two terms as synonymous?  The section never denied that: the examples it gave of people who treat the two terms as synonymous were of Catholics, not outsiders.  Add something, if you wish, but don't removed sourced statements on your own authority alone.  Lima (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LIMA, the context of the stated "SOME treat" is demeaning and diminishes the more than 1.1 BILLION Catholics and non-Catholics which understand that Roman Catholic church can most certainly mean the particular Church of the CC or RCC (that is not the issue here). The fact, that he is making commentary and utilizes Pope JPII's reference of "Roman Catholic Church" to describe the Universal Church and not the particular church shows the erroneous TWIST he is trying to implicate. I'm begining to wonder...are you the author of this commentary? MOST HONESTLY and sincerely, this is a true injustice. The commentary HAS to be removed OR at the very least re-stated; clearly pointing out that Catholics understand the Latin Rite (or church) as a particular church of the RCC/CC and is not to be confused by the term some use for the Universal Church, in Roman Catholic Church. (Which is exactly what occurs in the article.)Micael (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I already made a bit of editing, how would you like the article to begin:  Many times Catholics may refer to the term "Roman Catholic" OR just Many may refer to the term "Roman Catholic" Micael (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Micael, what you have written is not sourced. It is not true that, "many times", "Catholics" in general refer to the term "Roman Catholic" as to simply its "Latin Rite" (perhaps you mean "refer the term 'Roman Catholic Church'  simply to its 'Latin Rite').  Even if it were true, it must be sourced in Wikipedia.  I think also that the Latin Rite should be referred to as a, not the "particular church of the universal Roman Catholic Church".  Here you yourself use "Roman Catholic Church" in the way the Popes use it.
 * It is not only true, but sourced as well, that:
 * 1. Some Catholics treat "Roman Catholic" as meaning the same as "Latin-Rite Catholic". This is a sourced statement, not a commentary.  It cannot be removed merely because someone dislikes the fact.
 * 2. Popes have used "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the whole or universal Church. This is a sourced statement, not a commentary.  It cannot be removed merely because someone dislikes the fact.
 * The section already stated that in the official documents "Roman Catholic Church" was not used of the particular Church that they instead call the "Latin Church" or the "Latin Rite". I have now made this more explicit.
 * You yourself seem to say that "Roman Catholic Church" means the universal Church, and that "Latin Rite" means only one particular Church within the universal Church. This section has been saying from the start that this is the Church's official position, and that only some Catholics, not Catholics in general, use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin-Rite Catholic".  Lima (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, Lima, first I want to thank you for at least considering my point. That said, I want to say that the citation provide is mearly a Melkite Catholic site and no much of an official document. Thus, I understand the usage of the word "Some" in this case Melkite Catholics. However, I have found a much more appropriate document that I believe clarifies the issue once and for all.

The Catholic Encyclopedia near the very bottom of this page [] says:
 * "The comparison with Eastern Rite Catholics rests on a misconception of the whole situation. It follows also that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate."

That placed into consideration, I politely that you maintain the following revisions to the article.

"The Catholic Church uses the term..." instead of "Some Catholics use the term". And  "The Church" may also refer to the term." instead of, "Many times Catholics may refer to the term "

By the way, I use the shorter terms "The Church" and "Catholic Church" as usage of the longer "Roman.." adjective is already explained and truly makes the article quite a bit wordy- if not outright confusing to read.

Thanks again! Micael (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the Catholic Church. What is the official document of the Catholic Church that you say uses "Roman Catholic Church" to mean "Latin Church"?  Lima (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Lima is right on this one - the section is correct and its presence is acceptable in this article. I removed it at one point and disagreed with him on this a while back. I found his arguement won me over.


 * BTW the Catholic Enyclopedia also describes the Crusades as an attempt to "deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny."  So we have established that while the Church is infaliable and unchanging, the Catholic Encyclopedia enjoys no such insurance from the Holy Spirit. -- Secisek (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, LIMA, sorry I was not aware the Catholic Encyclopedia was considered inappropriately biased (and obviously un-official info). However, here I have found several other legit Catholic as well as and un-biased neutral non-Catholic sources that can be added as citations for the first paragraph. -I don't know how to add them to the reference list- (Neutral source)Where under the subheading "Current Patriarchs" it says "though they are in Communion with the Vatican- Holy See of the Catholic Church, but not the part of largest Latin(Roman) church/rite " ; In the book The Papacy: An Encyclopedia It starts with "Together with the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Church.." Lastly in EWTN's document library regarding Eastern Churches, we find in the fifth PP under "Churches" it says "One can thus speak of the Roman or Latin Church."

BUT most importantly,(for the second paragraph) in an OFFICIAL Catholic Church document comparing Confirmation the Latin Rite/Church to Eastern Churches I have found the usual term Latin Church replaced with its alternative "Roman Church". In the Cathechism of the Catholic Church PP 1291 it states "A custom of the  Roman Church  facilitated the development of the Western practice: a double anointing with sacred chrism after Baptism."

Thus, I have made changed representing the view of not only the Church, affiliated, and even of neutral parties.

Thanks yet again. Micael (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Roman Church" in the passage you quote, means the Church in Rome, what you might call the Diocese of Rome, not the Latin or Western Church (the Church not only in Rome but also in Milan, Spain, Gaul etc.) to which the Roman practice spread. The CCC reference is to St. Hippolytus, Trad. Ap. 21:SCh 11,80-95, which describes what was done in Rome, not elsewhere.
 * Moreover, your statement that "many Catholic parties" equate "Roman Catholic" with "Latin-Rite Catholic" is unsourced. Lima (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW Lima, your reactionary revision is quite surprising:

(The Western Rite)is NEVER called the "Roman Catholic Church", but ALWAYS the "Latin Church" or the "Latin Rite"(emphasis mine)

While I WILL admit and sincerely apologize, that I misunderstood the previous example- The "Roman Church" was speaking in reference to the city locale not the enire Latin Rite. However, the following exerpt does demonstrates an appropriate  example where "Roman Church" is mention as an alternative term to "Latin Rite/church".

In PP 1383 of the CCC, regarding the Eucharistic Prayer(anaphora) it specifically states:
 * "Thus the Roman Church prays in its anaphora: 
 *  We entreat you, almighty God,...we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace. 216" 

When we look at the cited footer #216 it says: "216 Roman Missal, EP I (Roman Canon) "

The Roman Canon applies specifically to a liturgical expression of the Latin Rite, not only the city (locale) of Roma. Thus when the CCC 1383 mentions "Roman Church prays in its anaphora" it is not merely speaking of a Eucharistic Prayer exclusive to the locale of the city of Rome, but one pertaining to the Latin Church which is exactly what is being described by the term "Roman Church" in PP 1383 of the Catechism.

Thus, warranting a revision to the article and most certainly a correction to the never and always mentioned.

Thanks

PS: Keep up the excellent work and scrutiny. (thumbsup) :o) Micael (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Roman Church prays in its anaphora: 'We entreat ...'". Yes.  And other local Churches have adopted the Roman Rite and so also use the Roman Church's anaphora.  Yes.  But the Roman Church's anaphora is not "the Latin Church's anaphora": just remember that parts of the Latin Church use or have used, not the Roman Church's anaphora, but the anaphora of the Mozarabic and other liturgical rites.
 * Sorry, but I must undo your latest unfounded change. Lima (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right again, Lima, Roman Catholic Anglican Use parishes belong to the Latin Church, but do not use Roman Rite or its anaphora. They recieved special permission from the Pope to use an approved version of the Book of Common Prayer that is itself based off the old Sarum Rite of the Latin Church. -- Secisek (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LIMA, your logic does not apply. Yes there are other- lets call them sub-rites(BTW, Secisek Anglican Use is not such a rite, it is a liturgical rite of the Roman Church. Thus, explaination LIMA just discarded)-of the Latin Church, but as I stated, there is no specific Rite of the Roman city localel. In the example provided they may have even used a Mozarabic or even an Abrosian (sub-rite) within the Wester/Latin Church and it would apply. "Roman Church" here is being used just as "Latin Church" because it is the the broader "Rite/church" which exist for those that use the Roman Missal.

There is simply no such thing as a specific Roman (locale) anaphora verses a Gallician anaphora verses a Milanese (Ambrosian (sub)rite). They are all various forms liturgy within the Latin Rite or Roman/Western Rite/church.

By the way, LIMA, you also discarded the citation for the "other non-Catholic" sources I had applied to the artcle.

Lastly, I still think it is rather rash to maintain the words "never" or "always" in the article.Micael (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is but one Latin Rite in the sense of a particular Church; there are several Latin liturgical rites, using differing anaphoras. The Anglican Use is not a liturgical rite of the (local) Roman Church: it is a liturgical rite of the (local) United States Church. There is a specific liturgical rite of the (local) Roman Church: it is called the Roman Rite.  It is precisely because it was and is the liturgical rite of the local Church of Rome that other local Churches within the Latin particular Church or Rite have adopted it.
 * The citation you gave for "non-Catholic" sources that identify "Roman Catholic" with "Latin-Rite Catholic" is invalid: you can't quote Wikipedia itself (even if quoted on another site) in support of a Wikipedia statement.
 * If there were even one case of the Roman Catholic Church using "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin-Rite Catholic", it would surely have been identified in the years during which this discussion has continued in Wikipedia. Can you find one?  Lima (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lima, your demands of an "official" document is significantly unreasonable. The New Advent Encylopedia is a source referenced to by many Catholic organizations. And even in the example above where Seciske tries to discredit the Catholic Encyclopedia as stating "the Catholic Enyclopedia also describes the Crusades as an attempt to 'deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.' ". That statement is ACTUALLY TRUE, that "army" hired to do the work were unfaith thugs and barbarians is another story, but reality was that Islamic Mohammedans DID invade the Holy Land and did intend to eventually conquer all of Europe for Allah.

Fact, is that the terms "Roman or Western" Church are frequently utilized interchangable for the Latin Church. And to say that Roman Church is "never" used or that "Latin Church/Rite" in church documents is always used or anything else(Western Church)simply implicates a flat out lie...that the term is not utilized in any way by anyone in the Catholic Church. Because it IS seen in offical document of various Churches and Representation of the Catholic Church throughout the world.

Regardless I will continue my search to find such and official document. Just please inform me what are some sources you consider "official", besides the CCC.

Thanks.Micael (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An official document is one issued by the Church, not just by "someone in the Catholic Church". The Catholic Encyclopedia and the like are issued under the responsibility of one or more individual Catholics, not of the Church.  Official Church documents are found in plenty on www.vatican.va and other Websites.  There are also books that contain either entire documents or important extracts such as those collected in Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum.  Lima (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well LIMA, here it is! In the third paragraph/last sentence of the Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV,  Allatae Sunt  it specifially proclaims the term "Roman Church" as the equivalent to the "Latin" particular church, as stated:


 * " all these rites are referred to by the single name of the Greek or Oriental Church, JUST AS the NAME of the Latin or Roman Church signifies the Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic rites,"(emphasis mine)

Could not have stated it any better. Thank you Pope Benedict.

Oh, and of course thank you yet again.Micael (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bravo. Well done!  Benedict XIV (1740-1758) obviously thought of the Catholic Church as composed of only two parts, one Western (which he called "Latin or Roman") with several liturgical rites, and one Eastern ("Oriental") with just four liturgical rites.  The Eastern Catholic Churches, whose numbers have been added to since the mid-eighteenth century, did indeed have work to do to get their individual identities and autonomies recognized.  Lima (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your additional commentary is immaterial. He is simply using "Greek" for the East or Orient; in the same sense as we refer to "Latin/Roman" for West.(Meaning two broad sections of the Church- Eastern and Western "lungs" of the Church...which is often refered to even today.  Though more historic term "Roman" is still often used today; the "Greek" term is used to a much lesser extent- Actually. E.Orthodoxy  prefers neither, they coin the term "Western and Easter Rome" for the Two Lungs.)

Oh, and so much for "always" and "never".Micael (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen the term "Western and Easter (sic) Rome" used in orthodoxy to describe anything since the fall of the Byzintine Empire. Can you point to an example of this usage? -- Secisek (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure here is an example though they prefer to speak of Constantinople as New Rome; East vs West  Rome  mentioned and infered throughout the passage with the following examples, right from the begining it starts, "intrusion and takeover of the " West Romans ...The evidence points clearly to the national, cultural, and even linguistic unity between  East and West Romans "  Additionally they viewed this in term of Old and New Rome, "after the fall of Constantinople New Rome...the importation into Old Rome of the schism."

As for LIMA's re-editing of the article. You really do quite a bit of unnecessary editorializing which is not only unfit for an encyclopedia, but it also incorrectly asseses what is stated in the encyclical and the time it was written. "In the non-recent past the Holy See was known to use "Roman Church" to refer to the Latin Church and "Greek Church" to refer to what was then considered a single Oriental Church that included not only Byzantine but also Armenian, Coptic and Syrian Catholics: the 1755 papal encyclical Allatae Sunt said: "

You see in using the statement "was known to use", you erroneously make it an exclusive statement as if that was the lone usage for the term at that time or even today. This error is made quite evident in the very same paragraph cited above,


 * "the Sacred Congregation has decided that it neither has been nor is permitted for those Catholics to abandon in any respect the custom and observance of their own rite which has likewise been approved by the Holy Roman Church.  "(As for the Universal Church- again I remind you he is speaking with added discription for separated Eastern Orthodox Catholic are also considered part of the Holy Church, but not in union with the Chair of Peter residing at ROME. Which is the context of the passage as is always the context whenever "Roman Catholic" is used for the Universal Catholic Church as the 4th paragraph even ends with, "Oriental Church United With Roman Church")

What is so wrong about making a statement merely stating that there are multiple meanings for the term Roman Church, Roman Rite, and Roman rite? The point of that section of the article is simply to point out the various uses of the term Roman (Catholic) Church as it pertains to the subject at hand which is "LATIN RITE". ''Not "Roman(Catholic) Church"...and why are you vearing off on a tangent regarding Benedict's reference of the Eastern Church as the Greek Church? As if editorializing a LONG exerpt off an Encylical about how a 19th century Pope uses the word "Greek Church" is something important to note regarding the subject at hand (Latin Rite)'' In doing so it makes the entire passage sound awkward and disconnected. (By the way, the explaination is that in addition to the geographic description of East vs West, there is also the geo-political-historical distinction of Roman(West) vs Greek(East)- the manner Benedict XIV uses, not to mention the chronological Old vs New Rome I stated above) Micael (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is in question is official use in the present day. (In non-official use, it is clear that some do use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin-Rite Catholic".)  The pope you mention was of the eighteenth, not the nineteenth, century; he wrote just over a quarter of a millennium ago.  The fact that the terminology he used does not correspond to present-day usage is decidedly relevant.
 * (Just by the way, your citation above about "the custom and observance of their own rite which has likewise been approved by the Holy Roman Church" concerns the Holy See, the Church in Rome which gave the approval, not the Latin Rite. As in the profession of faith made by the participants in the First Vatican Council, which included: "I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches".)  Lima (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your response to my request was a privately published website that was talking about historic origins, not present day uses. The site was not peer reviewed, no was it an offical document. It was one author's opinion. Yes, some people use "Roman" to mean "Latin Rite". Some poeple are also often wrong.


 * P.S. - I was well aware that Anglican use is not a seperate rite, that is why it is called a "use". -- Secisek (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You know there seem to be quite a lack of honesty here. It certainly seems you twist the rules and requirements as you go along. First it was an informal site, then, the Catholic Encyclopedia and other Catholic sites were not "the Catholic Church". Then it was "Can you find one" mention in an official document...because at the time you were making claims in the article as "always" and "never"(regardling the use of "Latin Church" vs "Roman Church")

Exhaustingly, I ask you what you require for an "official" document, so I could provide  it to you...knowing fully well that just because something is not found in a recent "official" document that it does not exist. Well now you rescind your "never" and "always" statements and now shun the evidence I provided because it is too out-of-date for you.

Well then LIMA, then I guess, what you require of me at this point is a modern times document coming preferably from the Vatican(www.vatican.va, etc.), where "Roman" is used to strickly define the Latin Rite/Church. Is that what you want? Because I need you to be clear with me before I go on a dead end search yet again...truly because I do not have the time to waste. And if I find this document could you grant me your word you would let my revision(you've already seen, see below) stand? Or would it still be a problem? It really is quite disheartening putting the time and dedication in to making Wikipedia better only for someone else to change the essence and purpose of the diligently searched cited material.


 * "The Catholic Church may also refer to the term "Roman (particular Rite) Church", as to simply its "Latin Rite"[2], that particular church of the universal Catholic, as mentioned above. Additionally, the Latin Rite should not be confused with the most commonly used liturgical rite utilized within the Latin Church, the Roman Rite."

As far as Secisek is concerned, I did not know you desired a "peer reviewed" LMAO, official document. I'll find it once I get the above matter cleared. My point was I was merely making an informal commentary outside of the main topic and discussion article.

Thanks y'all Micael (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "...a lack of honesty..." - what happened to assume good faith? Nobody has accused you of vandalism or suggested you are dishonest or that you are making me LMAO. Your sudden shift in attiude does not help your case. As for using offical documents or peer reviewed sources as citations, you may stop laughing when your read WP:SOURCE and see that those are not my requirements, or Lima, but Wikipedia's. You are making it difficult to take you seriously. -- Secisek (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry Secisek, perhaps I could have been a bit more political. But I have put great effort into this and sincerely it is painful do be dealt in this manner. Perhaps LIMA did not do this purposefully, but all the above is testament to this, whether or not it was the real intencion. Regardless, I take it back. Dispite may true agony...its not easy proving may point and finding documentation precisly as LIMA desires only to hit dead end. By the way, but what do you mean by "sudden shift change". Lastly, as regarding your point I was not making any changes in the article regarding "New" Rome, "West" Rome. I was just making a point in this discussion site.Micael (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is start level article. We have already invested far too much time on this one point. Let's leave it as is for the moment and try to push the article to GA status. We can pick up the arguement later when the article is improved. -- Secisek (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Secisek, leave the effort to me. I just want to be assured my point..backed up by the proper source will STICK. Why because it IS important to the article being discussed. Not that some 19th century Pope mentioned "Roman Church or Rite" in equal stance with the "Latin Rite"(the subject of this article)(and as in unrelated fact equated the Eastern Church as "Greek") and it is still being applied today in a significant number of Catholic Circles though in a lesser formal manner, thus my difficulty in proving its "official" "formatilty" to appease LIMA. GA status, can wait a wee bit, I only made my initial request nearly ONE YEAR AGO for us to hurry to GA status. In fact, if I do find the material discuss I sincerely belive it will make the artcle even better as it provides a more comprehensive discussion of the topic and variant terms that could apply to the same "Latin Rite".Micael (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just poining out that there is much to cite and improve besides this one point. Also I want to caution you not to take this one point and try to own the article over it: "leave the effort to me" sound like a step in that direction. -- Secisek (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Secisek, first, articles improve one point at a time. Secondly you are taking my comment out of context. I was reacting to your statement, "Let's leave it as is for the moment and try to push the article to GA status." and "the effort" I was talking about was the research required to find the appropriate source, period. But to say that I'm trying to own this article IS the farthest of my intentions, quite the contrary. If it does sound that way it is only because it certainly "appears" like someone DOES own it (whether there is truth to this or not, functionally that is exactly what is going on). Why may I say this, because I truly believe there IS no owner, as is the proper standard of this site. No owner but for genuine truth itself or its honest attempt to get there even if it can not be reached to its fullness. However, when you have editors editorializing excerpts of encyclicals or searching for needles in haystacks such as using John Paul II single mention of "Roman Catholic Church" (the lone instance ever stated in his 26 year Papacy),in what is the Vatican equivalent of a general "Talk" ( a general audience ) to visitors of the Vatican; just to be able to say John Paul II "treated "RCC as the equivalent to the CC". THAT, is simply a manipulation of facts and sources. Just as some say of researchers playing with "STATS" to suit their interest. I'm not doing such a thing, I am pointing out a well known truth that a significant number of individuals in Catholic and even non-Catholic circles, the words "Roman Church" can certainly be understood to mean the equivalent of the Latin Church even if in a lesser formal sense (hence, my difficulty finding Lima's requirement of such "official" documentation.) Instead, this has been what has been going on: If I do mention every single Catholic organization. but not the Holy See itself, then it does not suffice to say "Catholics" or the "Catholic Church", but merely "Some Catholics treat...", if it is not in an official Vatican(or the like) document it does not come from the Catholic Church, and if it was written by Benedict XIV in the 19th century it is too Old to apply, but if John Paul II merely mentions "Roman Catholic Church" but ONCE in a 26 year papacy, not in an encyclical, not in an apostolic letter, but in a what is essentially a transcript of a General Audience, THAT suffices to assume and state "JOHN PAUL II too, treated RCC= CC.", because the two encyclicals that were cited where more than half a century old..and I'm not even going to get into why such detail is even mentioned for an article about "Latin Rite" not the "Roman Catholic Church". Therefore, if that scenario can work for Lima, then I am personally confident I can find a citation for something much more relevant to this article; the usage the term "Roman..." as an alternative for Latin Rite within recent official Church documents, which should stick as accepted evidence, provided there is no blatant double standard which is what I am afraid of given my above experience.

No Secisek, the last thing I want to encourage is ownership of an article. However, I do realized that the beauty of this forum is that readers do have at least a say, in improving the quality of the material on the provision they give appropriate sources. Hence, my problem, when someone DOES provide such an adequate source then that should be the final stand. (THIS is what I am trying to achieve for WP in this article provided the reassurance the impact of such material would not be twisted or diminish by the biased editorializing of such a document.) Why, because if it does not work that way then it will only eventually hurt the quality of this marvelous site, as individuals become discouraged (I must admit this has already occurred to me at some level, unfortunately) and WP becomes a site controlled by individuals thwarting any attempt by outsiders to change a particular editor's inherent and possibly unknowingly involuntary bias. (Frankly nobody, is free from this human flaw, no matter how sincere and just a person may try to be.)

All I desire is the reassurance this will not happen so I can confidently step up to the challenge to search for such a citation. Leaving me with the real possibility of finding absolutely nothing- rendering Lima correct or I might just find the material and be certain that the impact of such a precise and up-to-date document would not be diminished. But to put me or anyone else on a fox hunt expedition only to have the purpose of such work tampered with or diminished by biased editorializing of the source would only serve a gross injustice, and ultimately lessen the popularity and quality of this site. "Mind you I have little problem with any editing process in and of itself, but it is the biased editing which changes the meaning and purpose of the very citation that has been painstakingly researched all for naught.

''So I ask again, if I can find a specific source preferably from the Holy See or the equivalent (ie, the Vatican), that is reasonably up-to-date (within the last 15-20 years at most) and effectively uses the term Roman (Rite) Church interchangeably with the Latin Rite church WP will recognize this reality in this article as it is important to acknowledge such a fact for an article referring to and entitled "Latin Rite". Just as it is already stated in the article, that sometimes -though rarely the Church refers to the church at large as "Roman Catholic Church" even though this has little to do with an article describing the Latin Rite, specifically. Hence, the need for data more relevant to the topic being discussed.

Is there anything too unreasonable to accept?''

Sincerely, Micael Micael (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say Lima. I recognize your efforts to improve the article, but I've also noticed there are certain issues you just will not let go. Notably that John Paul's alleged usage of the term "Roman Catholic Church", in but only one General Audience in 1985 somehow translates to a modern "official" usage of the term for the Church.

Well this is what I want to point out:

1) A general audience is in essence an "informal" or lesser formal talk the pope does on an nearly weekly(about 50 times a year) basis to visitors to the Vatican. Thus, even though it is recorded material it should not be treated on the same level as a Church "document"(its basically the pope saying "Hello" to visiting Christians with a little talk) otherwise any talk should be considered an "Official Vatican Document ".

2)  Regardless , most importantly and truly amaizingly regarding this citation, NOWHERE in the talk is the Catholic Church refered to as the "Roman Catholic Church"!
 * It says a great deal that the talk is not even offered in English, but only in Spanish and Italian. Therefore, it should not be utlized as "official" proof for an article written in a different language as there is a cultural component even to the Italian and Spanish translation. For example, we know that "Sede Romana" (PP#3)in English does not translate to "Roman See", but to  "Holy See".

Never-the-less,I reiterate, the most striking feature of this malcitation is that even in either available languages, Italian or Spanish, nowhere does the term "Iglesisa Catolica-Romana" (Roman Catholic Church) even exist.

As a matter of FACT, the lone time it is noted on record as "Roman-Catholic" is in PARAENTHESIS (PP#3) for the term "Catholic Church"!!!


 * Chiesa cattolica (romano-cattolica) Italian
 * la Iglesia católica (romano-católica) Spanish

Hence the inherent editorial bias is made quite evident. Twisting stats/records into saying what it does not say. Using a record(in foreign tongues), not truly a document in an attempt to elevate its importance. By ciiting a weekly talk to visiting pilgrims and placing it on equal "official" grounds as an encyclical or apostolic letter. All this for an article discussing the "Latin Rite" OF THE Church, not terminology for THE Church at large.

That said, I hope you can find some time to answer the question/challenge I posted above (May 23rd) regarding the more pertinent alternative terms/conotations of the topic being described in the article, the "Latin Rite" church.

Respectfully,

Micael (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not be so long-winded. I do not want to undertake the tiresome task of reading the long message you addressed on 23 May not to me but to Secisek.  May I take it that it is your final paragraph in italics that you call your "challenge"?
 * If you do find a case of a Pope or a department of the Roman Curia using, within the last hundred years, "Roman Rite" to mean "Latin Church" (the Church to which the Code of Canon Law applies, including the parts that use non-Roman liturgical rites), please bring it forward and stop wasting our time on hypothetical questions.
 * In that period Popes have referred to the Church as a whole as "Roman Catholic". Three specific instances  have been listed.  What more do you want?  Ex cathedra statements?  "Roman Catholic Church" is also used year after year in curial documents such as Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church.  Isn't that enough to show that in modern times the Popes and the Roman Curia have understood "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the whole Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome?  Quibbling about whether a phrase used in a talk at a general audience is or is not a case of a Pope calling the whole Church "Roman Catholic" is a waste of all our time.
 * It is because some treat "Latin Rite" and "Roman Catholic Church" as equivalent that the contrary usage of the Popes and the Roman Curia deserves a mention in this article. Lima (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kindness, not to mention your blunt honesty Lima. ;o)

As for your comments:


 * Isn't that enough to show that in modern times the Popes and the Roman Curia have understood "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the whole Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Quibbling about whether a phrase used in a talk at a general audience is or is not a case of a Pope calling the whole Church "Roman Catholic" is a waste of all our time.

Honestly Lima, the issue is not whether it was enough or not. The problem IS that in the last citation John Paul II does not even mention the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" - period! ...not to mention all the other significant problems with the malcitation. Or, the fact that it does not belong in this article concerning the Rite not the Church at large. Though as you properly noted, it may have some relevance should I find a citation where the Latin Rite is also mentioned as the "Roman" Rite/church.

Lastly, since you mentioned it, official church documents as the ones mentioned (apostolic letters and encyclicals) most surely suffice. However, documents dealing with ecumennical or inter-faith relations do not as their function is merely to "reach out" to those outside the Church...not truly a representation of how the Church sees itself. However, as already stated above this is not a subject worthy of discussion in this particular article.

Thanks again!,

Micael (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still no concrete contrary case. Seemingly confirms that the next section here concerns Micael.  Lima (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Micael, good effort in trying to explain the internal structure of the Church. here's a little quote from the Vatican's own website that illustrates the point you've had to reiterate numerous times. i believe i also made that point, and it is silly to me that someone is refuting 1700 years of tradition based on three instances that support his idea...i believe i supplied a quote of cyprian or one of the other church fathers that illustrated micael's same point. what micael is pointing out is nothing novel.

"As an institution this Dicastery received from the Supreme Pontiff the mandate to be in contact with the Oriental Catholic Churches for the sake of assisting their development, protecting their rights and also maintaining whole and entire in the one Catholic Church, alongside the liturgical, disciplinary and spiritual patrimony of the Latin Rite, the heritage of the various Oriental Christian traditions."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/orientchurch/profilo/rc_con_corient_pro_20030320_profile.html The Jackal God (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, another example of how the Holy See uses "Latin Rite", but not "Roman" anything, for the Western part of the Catholic Church, the whole of which, Eastern and Western, it calls the Catholic Church and sometimes the Roman Catholic Church, as in the already cited Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church, which is not a joint document signed by the Catholic Church and another Church, but an internal document of the Catholic Church alone. Lima (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the church in thousands of documents calls itself the Church or Catholic Church, and you can find three instances of it calling itself Roman Catholic Church. That section on naming convention gives undue weight to the three, which by the way is 2. if you read the actual text in italian for the 1985 papal audience, it doesn't say "Roman Catholic," it says "chiesa catolica, apostolica, romana." it should be removed. The Jackal God (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and in not even one document that can at all be called recent does it call the Latin Rite "the Roman Catholic Church", as some do.  Lima (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

what is your problem here? roman catholics belong to/use latin rite. greek catholics use greek rite. i don't hear ppl calling anyone greek-rite or latin-rite catholics. the 'greek' in front of catholic denotes the rite, likewise roman - latin. if you have a problem with latin/roman interchangeability, blame the samnites. The Jackal God (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are Catholics who belong to the Latin Rite Church but do not use the Roman Rite liturgy. Take those in Milan, who could be called Ambrosian Rite Catholics, but not Roman Rite Catholics.  They belong to the Latin sui iuris particular Church.  There is no "Ambrosian sui iuris particular Church".  Nor is there any "Roman sui iuris particular Church".  And it's not the fault of the Samnites!  Lima (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

but eve''ryone in the latin rite pertains to the latin or Roman patriarch, hence Roman catholic. please do not be obtuse.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm

"We must now add to Western Europe all the new lands occupied by Western Europeans, to make up the present enormous Latin patriarchate. Throughout this vast territory the pope reigns as patriarch, as well as by his supreme position as visible head of the whole Church with the exception of very small remnants of other uses (Milan, Toledo, and the Byzantines of Southern Italy), his Roman Rite is used throughout according to the general principle that rite follows the patriarchate, that local bishops use the rite of their patriarch. The medieval Western uses (Paris, Sarum and so on), of which people at one time made much for controversial purposes, were in no sense really independent rites, as are the remnants of the Gallican use at Milan and Toledo. These w''ere only the Roman Rite with very slight local modifications. From this conception we see that the practical disappearance of the Gallican Rite, however much the archeologist may regret it, is justified by the general principle that rite should follow patriarchate. Uniformity of rite throughout Christendom has never been an ideal among Catholics; but uniformity in each patriarchate is. We see also that the suggestion, occasionally made by advanced Anglicans, of a "Uniate" Anglican Church with its own rite and to some extent its own laws (for instance with a married clergy) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law. England is most certainly part of the Latin patriarchate. When Anglicans return to the old Faith they find themselves subject to the pope, not only as head of the Church but also as patriarch. As part of the Latin Church England must submit to Latin canon law and the Roman Rite just as much as France or Germany. The comparison with Eastern Rite Catholics rests on a misconception of the whole situation. It follows also that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate. A Eastern Rite Catholic on the other hand is a Byzantine, or Armenian, or Maronite Catholic. But a person who is in schism with the Holy See is not, of course, admitted by Catholics to be any kind of Catholic at all."

"About this page APA citation. Fortescue, A. (1910). Latin Church. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 25, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm

MLA citation. Fortescue, Adrian. "Latin Church." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 25 Jun. 2008 .

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Michael C. Tinkler.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York."

The Jackal God (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The early-twentieth-century Catholic Encyclopedia was not a Church document. The Wikipedia article states that "Roman Catholic" is used by some to mean "Latin Catholic" (not all that clear in the CathEnc article, but let that pass) while documents of the Holy See (even as far back as CathEnc) never use it in that sense, but do sometimes use it in another sense.  That statement has not been effectively gainsayed.  Lima (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example Lima. "The Roman Rite Church showed extraordinary missionary dynamism. This explains why a greater part of the world has been evangelized by heralds of the Latin Rite." as mention by Francis Cardinal Arinze a member of the Roman Curia during a speech in November 2006 non-the-less. 

Micael (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From the same talk by Cardinal Arinze: "... in the Latin Church the Roman Rite is predominant". That doesn't sound like saying that the Roman Rite (liturgy) and the Latin Rite (particular Church) are the same thing.  If the Roman Rite Church (which is not a sui iuris particular Church, but only that part of the Latin sui iuris particular Church that uses the Roman Rite liturgy) has been more dynamic than the Ambrosian Rite Church (which is not a sui iuris particular Church), both are still part of the Latin sui iuris particular Church, which uses various liturgical rites, of which the principal is the Roman, and which has evangelized a great part of the world through its heralds, most of whom use the Roman Rite.  Lima (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Lima, is that in that section he is speaking of the liturgical rite not the Roman rite CHURCH as is clearly mentioned. Additionally, that said, its is clear that even that liturgical rite alone comprises well over 99% of Latin Rite (Western Rite) Roman Catholics, and 100% of those to adhere to the disciplinary, guidance of the Patriarch of the Rome(West).

More importantly, why the leeway regarding John Paul II's general audience statement where he doen even mention the words "Roman Catholic Church"? Yet can not comprehend that Roman Rite Church whether you implicate ONLY 99% of the Western Chuch(strictly liturgically) or its additional disciplinary arm which entales the authority under the entire Patriarchate of Rome (Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosians subrites of the Roman Chuch).

Hence, by all reasonasble standards, there is most obviously an inconsistency here. Micael (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian (sub)rites (liturgical) of the Latin Church (sui iuris particular). Yes.  Lima (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

THE NAME GAME (AKA THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER...)
UHH, THANKS, I guess, to whoever clipped& pasted me here from the RC article.

I am sure you mean well, but I'm a big feller now & can paste myself:-') Opuscalgary 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of Latin ended at the Renaissance?
The first paragraph says "from antiquity to the Renaissance, Latin was the language of education and culture..." I think that cuts off Latin much too early. Latin was still used well into the 19th century. For instance, when John Quincy Adams studied in Holland at university the courses were in Latin. Also the Hapsburgs used Latin as the official language into the 19th century, if memory serves. It may have started petering out but the use of Latin die off that quickly right after the Renaissance? I turn to others with more knowledge then me.--Bruce Hall 11:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

i think we should leave it as "Latin Church" because that what us latins have called it for so long. we have never known it as something else....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.138.2 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Name
Much better...or at least I "get it" now. --SECisek (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Size?
In the opening section it reads The Latin Rite or Latin Church is the majority rite (in the sense of "church", not of "liturgical tradition")[1] or particular church within the Catholic Church, comprising roughly 80% of its membership. while later in the article it states The Latin Church or Rite is now present in all continents and is the majority rite or particular church within the Catholic Church, comprising approximately 98% of its more than 1.1 billion faithful.

Which is it? 80% or 98% Nik42 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to add exactly this observation to this discussion page, but I see that Nik42 already has. Since Nik42 pointed this contradiction out over 8 months ago and no knowledgable editor has made any correction, I feel it's better to have no reference to that figure than to have contradictory figures.  I will delete both references, and hope some editor with a reliable source will later re-insert the correct, internally consistent figure.  I wish I was that editor, but unfortunately I'm not.  &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
Why are Latin Rite and Latin rite treated differently? And why regard "Latin Rite" as anything other than a synonym for "Latin liturgical rite"? Srnec (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on Latin rite; I hadn't noticed the case-sensitive issue and will redirect to Latin Rite. Additionally, "Latin Rite" has long been used as a synonym for the Latin Church—yes, it's a misnomer, hence my multi-year effort to disambiguate the term in articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of also redirecting Latin rites here. Veverve (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will look into the links for that one. Maybe more likely that the plural form would be generally referential to the liturgical rites, but I agree with your redirect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also retargeted Latin rite (disambiguation) here. Veverve (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Should we consider deleting that one? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it should be kept. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)