Latin Church

The word Church (ecclesia) is used in its first sense to express 
whole congregation of Catholic Christendom united in one Faith, 
obeying one hierarchy in communion with itself. This is the sense 
of Matthew 16:18; 18:17; Ephesians 5:25-27, and so on. It is in 
this sense that we speak of the Church without qualification, say 
that Christ founded one Church, and so on. But the word is 
constantly applied to the various individual elements of this 
union. As the whole is the Church, the universal Church, so are 
its parts the Churches of Corinth, Asia, France, etc. This second 
use of the word also occurs in the New Testament (Acts 15:41; II 
Corinthians 11:28; Apocalypse 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 a diocese -- thus we speak of the 
Church of Paris, of Milan, of Seville. Above this again we group 
metropolitical provinces and national portions together as units, 
and speak of the Church of Africa, of Gaul, of Spain. The 
expression "Church of Rome", it should be noted, though commonly 
applied by non-Catholics to the whole Catholic body, can only be 
used correctly in this secondary sense for the local diocese (or 
possibly the province) of Rome, mother and mistress of all 
Churches. A German Catholic is not, strictly speaking, a member of 
the Church of Rome but of the Church of Cologne, or Munich-
Freising, or whatever it may be, in union with and under the 
obedience of the Roman Church (although, no doubt, by a further 
extension Roman Church may be used as equivalent to Latin Church 
for the patriarchate). 

The word is also used very commonly for the still greater portions 
that are united under their patriarchs, that is for the 
patriarchates. It is in this sense that we speak of the Latin 
Church. The Latin Church is simply that vast portion of the 
Catholic body which obeys the Latin patriarch, which submits to 
the pope, not only in papal, but also in patriarchal matters. It 
is thus distinguished from the Eastern Churches (whether Catholic 
or Schismatic), which represent the other four patriarchates 
(Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and any 
fractions broken away from them. The Latin patriarchate has always 
been considerably the largest. Now, since the great part of 
Eastern Christendom has fallen into schism, since vast new lands 
have been colonized, conquered or (partly) converted by Latins 
(America, Australia, etc.), the Latin part of the Catholic Church 
looms so enormous as compared with the others that many people 
think that everyone in communion with the pope is a Latin. This 
error is fostered by the Anglican branch theory, which supposes 
the situation to be that the Eastern Church is no longer in 
communion with Rome. Against this we must always remember, and 
when necessary point out, that the constitution of the Catholic 
Church is still essentially what it was at the time of the Second 
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 five patriarchates, of which the Latin Church is 
only one, although so great a part of the Eastern ones have fallen 
away. The Eastern Churches, small as they are, still represent the 
old Catholic Christendom of the East in union with the pope, 
obeying him as pope, though not as their patriarch. All Latins are 
Catholics, but not all Catholics are Latins. The old frontier 
passed just east of Macedonia, Greece (Illyricum was afterwards 
claimed by Constantinople), and Crete, and cut Africa west of 
Egypt. All to the west of this was the Latin Church. 

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 
were 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. 

ADRIAN FORTESCUE 
Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler