Logos 4 home page and ribbon.

Catholics
don’t read the bible.

It may, in fact, be fair to say that a large number of Catholics don't read the bible.

Many Catholics in the developing world are illiterate!

Many Catholics in the developed world have never developed a devotional life revolving around reading the Bible...

But, like our forebears, every Catholic hears the word of God and is devoted to the Word (Catholicism is not a religion of the Book it is a religion dedicated to the Person of Christ - it is He who is our measure and guide).

For those interested in how much of the Bible Catholics listen too over the course of the 3 year lectional cycle: http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

Can you
believe they have placed a catholic lectionary on the ribbon?

Catholics
don’t read the bible.

I hate to break this to you but Lutherans are tops in the use of Scripture in worship and Roman rite Catholics are a close second (some Eastern Catholic rites and Orthodox churches beat out the Lutherans but are not common in the U.S.). The so-called "Bible churches" don't even come close. Yes, I can believe that Logos placed lectionaries in the ribbon - consider the percentage of Christians and Jews who fall under these terms: Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern, Jewish, Lutheran, Anglican, and for the RCL: A number of Protestant churches have also adopted (and sometimes adapted) the RCL. In the United States of America this includes the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Fellowship of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Community of Christ, and the American Baptist Churches, USA,
among others. In Canada the list includes the United Church of Canada. In the United Kingdom this includes the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Church in Wales, and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and in Korea .. Australia ... etc. ... and I can't blame Logos for the fact that in their limited lectionary resources "C" for Catholic happened to fall first alphabetically. Catholics may not have a tradition of methodically reading the Bible in sequence, cover-to-cover but they certainly do read and hear the Bible.

Once you've gotten over the shock of that reply, consider how long Scriptures were passed on solely by means of the Catholics, Orthodox and Eastern Church monks hand copying the text.

Sorry for ragging on you but the number of times this has come up is riduculous.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/41969#Comment_41969

Many Catholics in the developing world are illiterate!

In the Middle Ages there were "Pauper's Bibles" - basically pictures to tell the story with enough words to keep the person able to read the words on track. Also in the Middle Ages churches in Southern Italy had their walls painted in frescos ... which if you knew the order to "read" them told the story of salvation. In most Byzantine and Slavic Orthodox churches (and there corresponding Uniate churches) the iconstasis at the front of the church has icons of the major events in Jesus' life in chronological order. Point: being literate in terms of being able to read, is not a prerequsite to knowing the Scriptures. And the idea of reading silently, i.e. not to the household, came after the invention of chimneys.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42210#Comment_42210

Point: being literate in terms of being able to read, is not a prerequsite to knowing the Scriptures. And the idea of reading silently, i.e. not to the household, came after the invention of chimneys.

Obviously, I know this Martha. I just spent two weeks with a priest from rural Ghana who was describing how different it is to live in an area where most people cannot read (and they don't have fresco adorned churches). They tend to preach for longer. There are very long catechesis sessions after Mass in which the scripture stories are told and expounded upon. People come together during the week to hear the word and to reflect upon it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42222#Comment_42222

Obviously, I know this Martha.

I trusted that you knew it ... but much of the misunderstandings are, as you pointed out, based on the assumption that Christians must be literate ... not literally, but assuming that Bible knowledge which comes from Bible study which requires reading the Bible. I'll admit also to being a little peeved that the Logos lime line for the History of Engliish Bibles excluded Old and Middle English translations - something that is misleading when it comes to Catholics and the Bible. If it were labeled something like "English translations: from Wycliffe on" or "Printed English translations" ... so I guess we'll call this my grumpy night.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42235#Comment_42235

I trusted that you knew it ..

I was fairly sure that you were just using my line as a launch pad....

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42237#Comment_42237

So can we drop the initial blanket insult from this thread? [:$]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42243#Comment_42243

Yes, but I was really hoping the original poster would offer either an explanation or an apology. I really do want to know where such misinformation comes from ... and I certainly am not immune from being taken in by bad sources of information.

J. Morris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42620#Comment_42620

With the release of L4, it seems there has been quite the influx of new forum posters (me included, logos user for over 10 years and my first forum post was day one of L4)

With that "influx" comes all kinds of people. Some of which display their "colors" a bit too brightly (or darkly rather). I believe the Lord Jesus' command to "Love God, Love Others" still stands... [:|] If He has decided to omit that (which fulfills the WHOLE law) then I missed the memo.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/41707#Comment_41707

Roman Catholic

Robert, you may already know this but may I give a technical adjustment? Yes, I know this is 'off topic' but it's interesting trivia.

Roman Catholic is short-hand for Roman Rite Catholic. The Catholic Church includes:

Roman liturgical tradition
1. Latin (Roman) Rite
2. Mozarabic Rite
3. Anglican use (recently expanded)
4. Ambrosian Rite
5. Braga Rite
6. Dominican Rite
7. Carthusian Rite
8. Carmelite Rite
Alexandrian liturgical tradition
1. Coptic Catholic Church
2. Ethiopian Catholic Church
Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
1. Maronite Church
2. Syriac Catholic Church[
3. Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Armenian liturgical tradition:
1. Armenian Catholic Church
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
1. Chaldean Catholic Church
2. Syro-Malabar Church
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
1. Albanian Greek Catholic Church
2. Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
3. Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church[
4. Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci
5. Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
6. Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
7. Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
8. Melkite Greek Catholic Church
9. Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
10. Russian Catholic Church
11. Ruthenian Catholic Church
12. Slovak Greek Catholic Church
13. Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
And yes, there are a few others but I can't find their names at the moment.

So I guess there is 'catholic' (single, early church), Catholic (American default of Roman Catholic), CATHOLIC (all the rites that somehow ultimate are in communion with the Bishop of Rome a.k.a. the Pope) and CATHOLIC (add in schismatics but not heretics)

Now I promise to sit down and shut up.[:#]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42637#Comment_42637

Roman Catholic is short-hand for Roman Rite Catholic.

No. "Roman Catholic" is a term coined by Anglicans in England to disparage papists. It is never the self-identifier of the Catholic Church in any document except ecumenical dialogues with the Anglican Communion (and the occasional legal document in English ex-colonies).

I am a Latin Rite Catholic who uses the Roman liturgical tradition.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42645#Comment_42645

I believe you ... I didn't know.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42670#Comment_42670

Heading still miles off topic...

Martha, try the online Catholic Encyclopaedia or Wikipedia entries on "Roman Catholic" or visit the discussion page for any "Roman Catholic" entry on Wikipedia - the last is a barrel of laughs.

Wrt...

Roman liturgical tradition
Latin (Roman) Rite

Mozarabic Rite

Anglican use (recently expanded)

Ambrosian Rite

Braga Rite

Dominican Rite

Carthusian Rite

Carmelite Rite

The Latin Rite, or Western Rite, or Latin Church, or Western Church has various liturgical traditions. The majority tradition is the Roman Rite, some of the traditions grew out of the Roman Rite, some did not. The Ambrosian RIte, for example, heavily influenced the Roman Rite and then, in turn was influenced by it... The Mozarbic and Gallican Rites can not in anyway be considered Roman. The ROman influence was very late and minimal.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42210#Comment_42210

In the Middle Ages there were "Pauper's Bibles" - basically pictures to tell the story with enough words to keep the person able to read the words on track.

They had COMIC BOOKS back then? Was it JC Comics, or Marvelous Comics? [:P]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42693#Comment_42693

i personally didn't grow up with lectionaries of any sort, but i have used them from time to time (especially leading up to Christmas and into Easter) and Logos helped me immensely with that, as did my Robert Webber Christian Worship series. And having gone to Mass, I have appreciated much of the symbolism and ritual (holding the word high, etc). That being said, I have several former Catholics in my church who all claim "I never was taught about __[some topic, place or person] " in the Bible (by their priest, etc). They berate the lectionary approach and lack of good explanation of how the Bible fits together. I counter that they probably didn't listen well (and many hadn't been to church in years), but at the same time it seems the tendency is that the average Catholic is not encouraged to pick up and read (my Catholic grandparents even threatened to "burn the Bible" if they caught my dad reading it again, but that was a whole different era of Catholicism, and it was an emotional response of theirs). Of course, I wonder how many Protestants actually don't read too. (ummm, that is sort of rhetorical. I know by empirical observation!). Or pastors for that matter.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42701#Comment_42701

it seems the tendency is that the average Catholic is not encouraged to pick up and read

We encourage. I assure you. But we can't force them....

Catholics rate on a par with Lutherans for regular bible reading in Australia (that's at the very bottom of the list 41% of practicing Catholics).

If you're interested, I did post links concerning the quantity of biblicl texts which Catholics encounter over the course of the 3 year lectional cycle - it is considerable.

But, your suspicion about the lack of a grand narrative is very close to the mark - and one that afflicts not only Catholics but many Christians.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42693#Comment_42693

They had COMIC BOOKS back then? Was it JC Comics, or Marvelous Comics?

I think I'd have to go with the Classics Illustrated series of my youth ... You didn't now that comics started with block prints rather than quills? [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42710#Comment_42710

But, your suspicion about the lack of a grand narrative is very close to the mark - and one that afflicts not only Catholics but many Christians.

Damian, you are spot on. On grand and smaller scales that is needed. It wasn't until I was in college and even graduate school that I started seeing how things "hang together".

I was blown away when I realized while studying 1 Peter that it wasn't just a collection of "religious stuff" but there was a flow and intent behind the letter, or seeing the theme of Promise woven from Genesis through Revelation. I hope to give my own kids a bit of a head start in seeing those things that took me so long to recognize--and frankly got me excited about Scripture.

And in current evangelical Christianity I have noticed that the over-reliance upon popular authors adds one more buffer to the Christian's confidence that they can approach, and grasp, the Biblical narrative directly.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42714#Comment_42714

They had COMIC BOOKS back then? Was it JC Comics, or Marvelous Comics?

I think I'd have to go with the Classics Illustrated series of my youth ... You didn't now that comics started with block prints rather than quills?

While living in Germany as a kid, the missionaries would get together for yearly camps and we had one old stalwart missionary who made it a point to ferret out card-playing missionaries and berate comic book reading m.k.s -- even though they were "Christian COmics" (like "God's Smuggler," etc)

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42759#Comment_42759

Catholics don’t read the bible.

That is an obsolete stereotype.

In the Middle Ages there were "Pauper's Bibles" - basically pictures to tell the story with enough words to keep the person able to read the words on track.

Actually, that is a caricature as well. Those who used "Pauper's Bibles" were in many cases more biblically literate than the average Christian today, even though they might not all have been able to read words. They were able to see the typological correspondences between the Old and New Testaments. Each page of the Biblia Pauperum was laid out with one central panel depicting a story from the life of Christ, flanked by two panels, depicting OT stories. Do a Google Images search on "Biblia Pauperum" and you can see some of these beautifully illustrated pages and try your hand at "reading" them and see if you can do as well as the people of the Middle Ages could. The Wikipedia page on Biblia Pauperum gives the example which was usually the first plate among 40 in a BP (they came in many different editions -- hand done and block printed -- but usually followed the same order of plates). In this one, first try to figure out what three familiar stories are being depicted before looking at the caption below which gives it away. Now spend some time meditating on the relations between these three stories and see what you come up with. This was a very deep way of knowing Scripture that many of us today have fallen far, far away from. We cherry-pick verses here and there to memorize or to rally in support of a theological position, but we don't see the interconnections of the whole.

But, your suspicion about the lack of a grand narrative is very close to the mark - and one that afflicts not only Catholics but many Christians.

Damian, you are spot on. On grand and smaller scales that is needed. It wasn't until I was in college and even graduate school that I started seeing how things "hang together".

I was blown away when I realized while studying 1 Peter that it wasn't just a collection of "religious stuff" but there was a flow and intent behind the letter, or seeing the theme of Promise woven from Genesis through Revelation.

Spot on, both of you! It wasn't until I was in seminary that I started reading the Bible in large chunks and seeing the grand narrative that held the whole thing together. Like most Evangelicals, I grew up reading and memorizing verses here and there out of context and trying to "apply" them to my life. Even a "read-through-the-Bible-in-a-year" plan gave me no sense of the sweeping flow because I'd read only a couple of chapters at a time. Try sitting down and reading the entire book of Genesis or Job in one sitting, and you'll get an entirely different feel for it! And the course I took on Biblical Theology was transformational: seeing themes of Garden, Seed, Covenant, God's Name, Land, Kingship, etc., running through Scripture all the way through to the NT for the first time blew me away and has continued to undergird my understanding of the Word. I'd love to see Bruce Waltke's Old Testament Theology in Logos format! (I took the OT portion of the course with him and was privileged to be his TA for it when he taught it as a stand-alone course, and I helped him edit his lecture notes which eventually became that book! It's a phenomenal masterpiece, if I do say so myself.)

I hope to give my own kids a bit of a head start in seeing those things that took me so long to recognize--and frankly got me excited about Scripture.

An excellent Children's Bible which doesn't just present the stories as stand-alone episodes but links them all into the Grand Story of God's Son and Redemption is The Jesus Storybook Bible by Sally Lloyd-Jones (Zondervan). It's hardcover and durable, nicely illustrated (not cheesy like some are), suitable for kids ages 4-7. Maybe your kids are already older than that, but for any who aren't, it would be a great start!

And in current evangelical Christianity I have noticed that the over-reliance upon popular authors adds one more buffer to the Christian's confidence that they can approach, and grasp, the Biblical narrative directly.

Yup. What ends up happening is they bring to the text that popular author's grid of interpretation, and then even when they do read the Bible for themselves, they read into it what they've already been told it says (eisegesis) rather than letting it speak for itself and deriving meaning out of it that way (exegesis).

Update: I realized HTML doesn't work directly in forum posts; I just fixed the links.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42779#Comment_42779

Rosie, thank you. The google search was interesting (let's get THOSE into Logos Media search!) and I will check out the Bibles. My two boys are under 7 (4 and 6), my two girls are 8 and 10.

I am not even so worried about bringing "that author's grid" to the text . . . although I recognize that can be a problem (especially when that author disagrees with my theology, lol). But for me the critical problem is they continue to think that somebody else HAS to interpret things for them. They have to rely on guideposts, devotionals, Lucado, Ortberg, Briscoe, or MccArthur to understand the Bible, and implicitly they think: "I might as well not crack open that big book because it'll do me no good."

Hmm, is there a Bible software out there that can help them?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42779#Comment_42779

Actually, that is a caricature as well. Those who used "Pauper's Bibles" were in many cases more biblically literate than the average Christian today, even though they might not all have been able to read words. They were able to see the typological correspondences between the Old and New Testaments. Each page of the <i>Biblia Pauperum</i> was laid out with one central panel depicting a story from the life of Christ, flanked by two panels, depicting OT stories.

Yes, you did a much better job of describing the Biblia Pauperum than I did; I do have a reproduction of one. I'll admit that I was so frustrated at people being upset at the lectionary (potentially) showing on the home page, that I reacted more than usual to James Luzadder's statement. He baited; I bit. Actually, it would be nice for Logos to carry a Biblia Pauperum in their media library. It would serve to counteract some misinformation about the Bible and the Middle Ages.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42788#Comment_42788

Yes, you did a much better job of describing the Biblia Pauperum than I did; I do have a reproduction of one.

I do, too! I've actually got two different ones. We actually had a sermon at my church on the Biblia Pauperum by noted Christian art historian Laurel Gasque earlier this year (I'd invited her after taking her course on Faith & Western Art). The audio of that sermon (but unfortunately not the slides yet; I'll see if we can get them from her) is available on our website here.

I'll admit that I was so frustrated at people being upset at the lectionary (potentially) showing on the home page, that I reacted more than usual to James Luzadder's statement. He baited; I bit.

Yeah, I was tempted to bite as well, but I realized plenty of others had already responded to him adequately.

Actually, it would be nice for Logos to carry a Biblia Pauperum in their media library. It would serve to counteract some misinformation about the Bible and the Middle Ages.

Oh, don't get me started on what Logos needs to add to their media library! There is a paucity (complete absence, as far as I can tell) of any real art. All they've got is diagrams, "clip-art" like sketches of biblical objects, maps, and photos of Bible lands. Those are all nice, but very weak compared to what is available (and here's where the Catholics have perhaps an edge on us Protestants -- they never threw out art in the Reformation like we did). There are thousands of great paintings of Biblical subjects in the public domain, and many of them have been collected into online digital libraries. Logos needs to get with the program -- there is a new Renaissance going on now in terms of Faith and the Arts (just look at the flood of recent book titles on that subject, none of which, I might add, have made it into Logos's library [:(]) -- and provide integration of these wonderful resources to enrich our Bible study! Here are some places where these images can be found. Sure, there might need to be licensing arrangements with the publishers of the digital versions of these images, but hey, that's what Logos is in the business to do and they do it very well!

Art in the Christian Tradition (Vanderbilt Divinity Library)
The Art Concordance (put together by the custodian of The Text This Week with suggestions from her viewers) - links to biblical art hosted all over the Internet, indexed by Scripture reference and Theme
Art and the Bible (collected and maintained by a web publisher in Amsterdam)
ATLA Cooperative Digital Resources Initiative - digital resources for the study of religion, a joint project of the American Theological Library Association and Association of Theological Schools; the whole first section of this index is titled "Architecture, art, iconography"
Biblical Art on the WWW (one individual's pet project, but very comprehensive)
ARTStor (a database of digital images of art, available only for subscribers or through institutional subscriptions; but has tons of Biblical art in it)

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42801#Comment_42801

Oh, don't get me started on what Logos needs to add to their media library!

OH, PLEASE DO!

I find this thread most enlightening. And as MJ can tell you, Logos would be missing a lot of good stuff if she and others had not asked for & provided some of it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42680#Comment_42680

The Latin Rite, or Western Rite, or Latin Church, or Western Church has various liturgical traditions.

I prefer the term "Roman" from the patriarchy [Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople]. As I attend a Dominican Church which celebrates the Dominican Rite four times a year, I've heard many times how the Dominicans "standardized" Western Liturgy by being traveling priests carrying their own liturgical books. I nearly mentioned the Sarum Rite - which has beautiful chant - and the Gallican Rite simply because I'd prefer to thin of the "Anglican use" being a re-introduction of the Sarum Rite rather than an entirely 'new' rite. And yes, the flow of refugees from the Near East brought a number of Byzantine practices into Southern Italy, Mozarabic can causally be translated "phony Arabic". However, the point I wanted to make with my post was the "Catholic" with a capital "C" was not as simple a term as that poster had assumed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42801#Comment_42801

I do, too! I've actually got two different ones. We actually had a sermon at my church on the Biblia Pauperum by noted Christian art historian Laurel Gasque earlier this year (I'd invited her after taking her course on Faith & Western Art).

Now I'm guilty of the sin of envy. Thank you for the references I do hope that L4 will soon allow customer-created web site lists ... or perhaps they would allow a handful of entries in the topics.logo wiki for Biblical art, music, online journals, lectionary-based study/sermon sites etc. I would volunteer to convert the toolbars I'd made for L3 if you volunteer for religious art.

And to retaliate slightly for causing my sin, I'll mention that we There's no emoticon for a residence a priest who spent much of his carreer as a curator in the Vatican. [there's no emoticon for a smug wink].

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42816#Comment_42816

I do hope that L4 will soon allow customer-created web site lists ... or perhaps they would allow a handful of entries in the topics.logo wiki for Biblical art, music, online journals, lectionary-based study/sermon sites etc. I would volunteer to convert the toolbars I'd made for L3 if you volunteer for religious art.

Sure, I'd be glad to volunteer to create a wiki page listing sites for religious art. But I do really hope Logos will integrate it into their search engine. I'd love to be able to use it to find all art related to a particular passage or person or place.

And to retaliate slightly for causing my sin, I'll mention that we There's no emoticon for a residence a priest who spent much of his carreer as a curator in the Vatican. [there's no emoticon for a smug wink].

I just read today in ArtDaily (which claims to be the "First Art Newspaper on the Net") an article "Pope Benedict Meets Artists from Around the World in the Sistine Chapel" with an awesome fisheye photo of the Sistine Chapel with all those artists assembled there with the pope. Now, that'll get your envy juices going!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42813#Comment_42813

I prefer the term "Roman" from the patriarchy [Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople].

Martha,

Whatever term you may prefer, the expression "Roman Rite" is not one used anywhere to refer to the "Latin Church". I would refer you both to the documents of the Second Vatican Council (not available in Logos) or to the Code of Canon Law can.1 (also not in Logos).

The traditional term for referring to the patriarchal see of Rome in the Roman Church qua patriarch is "Patriarch of the West" - though abolished by BXVI (see here: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=1914)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42824#Comment_42824

Whatever term you may prefer, the expression "Roman Rite" is not one used anywhere to refer to the "Latin Church".

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, to communicate with the Evangelicals, I need to consider external not internal naming ... so the phone yellow pages reign supreme. I still say Germany and Cologne and, for the life of me, can never keep the three major Lutheran churches in the US straight. And please don't embarrass me by asking about premillenial, postmillenial, amillenial, promillenial .. or even worse monocovenental, duocovenental, tricovenental, duodecocovenental

But seriously, I would love to see official church documents - Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox ... - available in Logos. They are very useful for serious apolgetics. I'll start looking a copyright issues when PBB's are back.

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42779#Comment_42779

Biblia PauperumI did a search of my library to learn about this tradition. I got the most hits from one of my all time favorite resources, "A Dictionary Of Biblical Tradition In English Literature" I had this for years in paper before upgrading to the Logos version and it is a great resource :-)

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222596#Comment_222596

Thanks, Joe, for pointing me to this thread! Apart from the initial prejudice, well worth reading.

Also in the Middle Ages churches in Southern Italy had their walls painted in frescos

Not just Southern Italy! I'm going to a 13th century Franciscan church tomorrow, which is full of frescos, as are lots of other Swedish churches.

And yes, there are a few others but I can't find their names at the moment.

Besides the Gallican and Sarum rites mentioned later in the thread I believe there was also a Brigettine Rite. Certainly for the Office; I don't remember with absolute certainty about the Mass. And the Benedictines/Cistercians also had their own Rite, at least for the Office -- some of which, amusingly, have been preserved in the (very unofficial) Church of Sweden Office. Also, I'm fairly certain the Irish would have had their own rite[s ] as well.

here's where the Catholics have perhaps an edge on us Protestants -- they never threw out art in the Reformation like we did

Not all Protestants did either!

Whatever term you may prefer, the expression "Roman Rite" is not one used anywhere to refer to the "Latin Church".

And what was the Latin Church and Rite called back in the days when it used Greek? [:P]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222630#Comment_222630

And the Benedictines/Cistercians also had their own Rite, at least for the Office

For Mass as well but you left out the Dominicans ... and they still have their own rite. No past tense.

And what was the Latin Church and Rite called back in the days when it used Greek?

From very early times the practices of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople differed. The Latin church used Latin, the Greek church used Greek, the Syriac church used Syriac .... but they were all part of a single church (more or less). But you are absolutely right that there were multiple Latin rites, multiple Greek rites etc. But I was misunderstood on another thread where you can see a reasonably complete list of the current rites within the Catholic church., so I'll stay out of that. The Council of Trent tried to "standardize" to the rite used in Rome unless the rite in use was traditional (200 years of use if I recall correctly). The Sarum rite was "relinquished" to the Church of England but is making a bit of a Catholic rebound under the title "Anglican usage". As for the Celts ... that another ball of wax.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222756#Comment_222756

you left out the Dominicans

No, I didn't. They were already in your original list, as were the Carthusians and Carmelites. [;)] I was just adding some you forgot.

From very early times the practices of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople differed. The Latin church used Latin, the Greek church used Greek

Unless I was taught completely incorrectly, or new research has changed things, I believe that you are wrong about this. The Church in Rome is supposed to have been founded primarily among the Greek speaking population (slaves and immigrants) -- which is why we still talk about the "Kyrie", and probably why Peter and Paul could easily preach to them -- and they continued to use Greek for a surprisingly long time. So they could hardly have talked about the "Latin Church" and the "Latin Rite" back then... Presumably they did talk about the "Roman Church" and the "Roman Rite".

EDIT: Damian is definitely wrong about "Roman Rite" never being used officially. I just found it in CCC 1203 (British English edition)! It doesn't get any more official than that!

It is, however, used the opposite way you used it in your list: "Roman rite" for the rite used in Rome; "Latin rite" as the wider term for Roman, Ambrosian, Dominican etc. Makes sense. So now both you and I can continue to use "Roman" with good conscience! [:D]

EDIT 2: I've now found "Roman rite" in Sacrosanctum Concilium as well. Precisely where Damian said I wouldn't find it! [:P]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222845#Comment_222845

I believe that you are wrong about this.

Yes, and no - the Roman church may have used Greek but the Latin church used Latin [;)] Seriously, yes Greek was used in Rome before Latin.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222845#Comment_222845

Damian is definitely wrong about "Roman Rite" never being used officially.

Please re-read exactly what I wrote. It is never used officially to refer to the "Latin Church."

Considering that I celebrate Mass according to the Roman Rite every day, I am well aware that it is the preferred term used to refer to the dominant liturgical form in the Latin Church.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222845#Comment_222845

The Church in Rome is supposed to have been founded primarily among the Greek speaking population (slaves and immigrants) -- which is why we still talk about the "Kyrie", and probably why Peter and Paul could easily preach to them -- and they continued to use Greek for a surprisingly long time.

Most likely the liturgy in Rome was primarily in Latin from the middle of the fourth century - mostly supposition as textual witnesses to the period, liturgically, are scarce.

The Kyrie definitely didn't enter into the Roman Rite until after the middle of the third century - it was quite foreign to the pilgrim Egeria on hearing it chanted in Jerusalem.

The first evidence of its use in Rome is from 529ad - the Council of Vaison makes reference to the introduction of the Kyrie into the liturgies of Italy.