Latin Church

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The word Church (ecclesia) is used in its first sense to express the whole congregation ofCatholicChristendom united in one Faith, obeying onehierarchy in communion with itself. This is the sense ofMatthew 16:18;18:17;Ephesians 5:25-27, and so on. It is in this sense that we speak of theChurch without qualification, say that Christ founded one Church, etc. But the word is constantly applied to the various individual elements of this union. As the whole isthe Church, the universal Church, so are its parts the Churches ofCorinth,Asia,France, etc. This second use of the word also occurs in theNew Testament (Acts 15:41;2 Corinthians 11:28;Revelation 1:4, 11, etc). Any portion then that forms a subsidiary unity in itself may be called a local Church. The smallest such portion is adiocese — thus we speak of theChurch ofParis, ofMilan, of Seville. Above this again we group metropolitical provinces and national portions together as unities, and speak of theChurch of Africa, of Gaul, ofSpain. The expressionChurch of Rome, it should be noted, though commonly applied by non-Catholics to the wholeCatholic body, can only be used correctly in this secondary sense for the local diocese (or possibly the province) ofRome, mother and mistress of all Churches. A GermanCatholic is not, strictly speaking, a member of theChurch ofRome but of theChurch of Cologne, or Munich-Freising, or whatever it may be, in union with and under the obedience of theRoman Church (although, no doubt, by a further extensionRoman Church may be used as equivalent toLatin Church for thepatriarchate).

The word is also used very commonly for the still greater portions that are united under theirpatriarchs, that is for thepatriarchates. It is in this sense that we speak of the Latin Church. The Latin Church is simply that vast portion of theCatholic body which obeys the Latin patriarch, which submits to thepope, not only inpapal, but also in patriarchal matters. It is thus distinguished from theEastern Churches (whetherCatholic or Schismatic), which represent the other fourpatriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem), and any fractions broken away from them. The Latinpatriarchate has always been considerably the largest. Now, since the great part ofEastern Christendom has fallen intoschism, since vast new lands have been colonized, conquered or (partly) converted by Latins (America,Australia, etc.), the Latin part of theCatholicChurch looms so enormous as compared with the others that many people think that every one in communion with thepope is a Latin. Thiserror is fostered by theAnglican branch theory, which supposes the situation to be that theEastern Church is no longer in communion withRome. Against this we must always remember, and whennecessary point out, that the constitution of theCatholicChurch is still essentially what it was at the time of theSecond Council of Nicaea (787; see also canon 21 of Constantinople IV in 869 in the "Corp. Jur. can.", dist. xxii, c. vii). Namely, there are still the fivepatriarchates, of which the Latin Church is only one, although so great a part of the Eastern ones have fallen away. TheUniate Churches, small as they are, still represent the oldCatholic Christendom of the East in union with thepope, obeying him aspope, though not as their patriarch. All Latins areCatholics, but not allCatholics are Latins. The old frontier passed just east ofMacedonia, Greece (Illyricum was afterwards claimed by Constantinople), and Crete, and cut Africa west ofEgypt. All to the west of this was the Latin Church.

We must now add to WesternEurope all the new lands occupied by WesternEuropeans, to make up the present enormous Latinpatriarchate. Throughout this vast territory thepope 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 theByzantines of SouthernItaly), hisRoman Rite is used throughout, according to the general principle that rite follows thepatriarchate, that localbishops use the rite of their patriarch. Themedieval 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 atMilan and Toledo. They were only theRoman Rite with very slight local modifications. From this conception we see that the practical disappearance of theGallican Rite, however much the archæologist may regret it, is justified by the general principle that rite should followpatriarchate. Uniformity of rite throughoutChristendom has never been an ideal amongCatholics; but uniformity in eachpatriarchate is. We see also that the suggestion, occasionally made by advancedAnglicans, of a Uniate Anglican Church with its own rite and to some extent its ownlaws (for instance with a marriedclergy) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law.England is most certainly part of the Latinpatriarchate. WhenAnglicans return to the old Faith they find themselves subject to thepope, not only as head of theChurch, but also as patriarch. As part of the Latin ChurchEngland must submit to Latin canon law and theRoman Rite just as much asFrance orGermany. The comparison with Eastern Uniates rests on a misconception of the whole situation. It follows also that the expressionLatin (or evenRoman)Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not onlyCatholics but also members of the Latin or Romanpatriarchate. A Uniate on the other hand is a Byzantine, orArmenian, orMaroniteCatholic. But aperson who is inschism with theHoly See is not, of course, admitted byCatholics to be any kind ofCatholic at all.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT