Talk:Catholicism

Rites and Priviledges

Whoa, Nelly! What is this "hybrid" rite that is developping in LA? Without knowing any specifics, the main problem with this that I can see is that the Rites all have distinct and separate liturgies, canon laws, and governance. I can understand integrating some practices from other regions if there is a large minority population, but I really couldn't go along with the idea of a "hybrid" rite without learning more about it... Elemtilas

I should imagine that it's a conglomeration between the Latin rite and other rites in the area, meaning that there is adoption of Dalmatian and other rites, and that there may be, in the future a "Louisiannan" Rite. I'm not sure what to think myself...I put it out as a thought. BoArthur 15:55, 15 May 2005 (PDT)

You know Dan, this sort of things doesn't happen that easily. Clergy from the originating rite would probably not be too keen of diluting the "purity" and neither would many faithfuls. Also, why exactly would that have happenned ? Multiculturalism usualy mean many separate churchs to cater to the various groups, not synchretism. At best you could expect a few joint ceremonies or the like.

Quite so. Also note that, as far as we know, the Dalmatians are Roman Rite, so no need for hybridising anything on their account.Elemtilas

As I understand Louisiana, it is, with the exceptions noted (Lutheranism and Mormonism), mostly Catholic. Being French, I would be almost certain that they are Roman Catholic. Now, we know that a number of Dumnonians have emigrated to LA; but unless some priests have emigrated, I should suspect that most Dumnonians are by now quite Romanised.Elemtilas

I should also note that "Rites" in the Catholic (and even Orthodox) Church are nòt something that are made -- they exist now only because truly ancient differences in practice evolved in different places. The liturgy used in Rome was different from the liturgy used in Toledo which in turn was different from the liturgies used in Constantinople or Glastein. Cambriese priests may marry, as may Byzantine; but not Roman or Isidorian. The clothes differ a little. It's that sort of ritual practice that makes up a "Rite". And they don't mix well. Even *here*, you simply don't find a RC priest chanting the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. You have to go over to a Byzantine Catholic church to hear that.Elemtilas

Of course this wouldn't prevent a splinter group but one wonder how widespread the hybrid would be.--Marc Pasquin 18:00, 15 May 2005 (PDT)

Is there no sort of ecumenism in IB? I should wonder if there was ecumenism that this sort of thing wouldn't happen? BoArthur

There is "ecumenism" in IB: see Talk:Ecumenical.Elemtilas

The logical reasoning has greatly outweighed my suggestion. QSS wins. :)

Now, it would be interesting to find out what sorts of local practices there are among *here*'s Louisiana Catholics that could be expanded upon *there*. I.e., things that would make LA's Catholics distinctive, but naturally within the practice allowed by the Church. LA has all those weird holidays, like where they run about without their trousers done up. I'm certain that there would be some particularly religious holidays Louisianaises as well.Elemtilas

Pope

Didn't the pope die *there* to? And don't they have a new one, like *here*?

No: not as of yet anyway! Perhaps in the next two or three years I can start thinking about who might come next... Elemtilas 19:37, 10 March 2006 (PST)

added

From "Dalmatian Orthodox"

Papal infallibility *here* is a relatively recent docrine, only being dogma since 1870. *Here* hyper-conservative catholics are more likely to reject papal infallibility than adhere to it. Deiniol 12:54, 10 Mar 2005 (PST)

Duh...*fixes* I know that...slipup. :)

Or, actually, wait. Nowadays the pope is viewed as *not* infallible, i.e. he can make mistakes...and that was the recent change? As far as I recall prior to that change the pope was viewed as not ever being capable of making a mistake...

Nope. Cf. the wikipedia article: [[1]] Deiniol

Oh, you're right. Bah. Shows how much of a Catholic I am...and to think, I have a retired Archbishop as a friend... added

---

:I will incorporate this into my article on Catholicism in IB. Note that "Orthodox" means that a church is, well, Orthodox -- in the sense of Greek Orthodoxy. Small o orthodoxy is simply an adjective that means "right doctrine" and describes both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The relative conservatism is not a problem, though, noting that the RCC *there* is not quite as liberalised as *here*.

*There*, Latin is still quite the only acceptable liturgical language in the Latin Rite. If this sect believes in papal infallibility, they're doing something the Holy See never promulgated: in other words, there was never a doctrine of infallibility *there* (even though it apparently came up at the Vatican Council in 1988). It is, of course, traditional (on the part of Latin Rite folks) to accept whatever the Pope of Rome says as "infallible" when issued under the auspices of his office of Patriarch of the West. Even other Catholics will sit up and take notice when he teaches as Supreme and Ecumenical Pontiff -- i.e., leader of all Christendom.

What is the religious makeup of Dalmatia? Mostly Orthodox? Mostle Catholic? Mostly Moslem?

I will add the following to the article at <http://www.bethisad.com/catholicism.htm> - - - "A number of "uses" or local varieties exist within the Latin Rite. These consist of small national churches or larger cohesive groups within a larger community. One example is the Catholic Church of Dalmatia, it is a very conservative community that rejects the alterations to the Divine Liturgy, affirm the supremacy of the Pope of Rome over all temporal authorities and the infallibility of the Pope of Rome when speaking with St. Peter's authority. Population is about 250,000 in Dalmatia; undoubtedly there are communities of ex pats in the Dalmatophone States as well."

The present page can be deleted as redundant, unless there's a really good reason to keep it. [PB]

And indeed it has been deleted. The information it contained has been moved to the article page Catholicism. Elemtilas 19:37, 10 March 2006 (PST)

added

Rite

What is the predominant rite in England? --Quentin 13:39, 28 May 2006 (PDT)

The Roman Rite. Elemtilas 08:07, 21 November 2006 (PST)

added

Orthodox

I'm a tad unclear about something. Reading this, I get the impression that the Great Schism between the Pope and the eastern Patriarchs never happened. Yet there is also reference to the Russian Orthodox Church. Can someone please explain? Did the Great Schism take place? Zahir 16:36, 23 November 2006 (PST)

It very much did happen *there*! Can you point to areas of confusion? What's going on in IB is that, basically, we're approaching the end of the period of Great Schism. The two great churches are slowly working towards reunification. They are *here*, too, but they are closer to that happy day over in the other trouser leg of time. Elemtilas 17:31, 23 November 2006 (PST)

Okay, you've cleared that up rather nicely. Thank you. Zahir 22:57, 23 November 2006 (PST)

Oh, alright! I'll make a section that dwells a little on the reunification. Elemtilas

added

Patriarchs

Patraic;

What patriarchs are there? Is this list correct?

1. Patriarch of the west (= the pope ?)
2. Patriarch of Constantinople (Not the orthodox one, surely ?)
3. Patriarch of Antioch
4. Patriarch of Babylon
5. Patriarch of Cicilia
6. Patriarch of Alexandria
7. Patriarch of Glastonbury

We know who the pope is *there* - sorted.

There was historically a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, abolished in 1965. There is also the orthodox patriarch there. I don't think either are who we're looking for, are they?

The third is probably, the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, *here* Ignatius Peter VIII Abdel-Ahad.

The fourth is also someone here the Chaldean Patrarch of Babylon, *here* Mar Emmanuel III Karim-Delly

The fifth and sixth likewise by the same pattern are here Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni and Anthony Naguib respectively.

The seventh is a role not linked to any here, I don't think, is it?

The situation *there* pretty well parallels *here*, with a number of major and minor patriarchs. Your list of major patriarchates is correct, with only a couple ammendations:

1. Patriarch of the West is indeed the Pope of Rome (the latter is the title most often seen when I refer to him)
2. Patriarchal Abbot of Glastonbury (indeed, not linked to any real situation)
3. Melchite Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria and all the East
4. Syrian Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
5. Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
6. Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria
7. Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians
8. Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans

No. 1 is, of course, the Pope. The rest are the uniate patriarchs. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 all derive from various schisms and contentions of title long ago. Nos. 3 through 8 all parallel an Orthodox patriarch. No. 2 is unique to the West. All of these are elected by synods of their own bishops and are confirmed by the Pope of Rome. They are independent of all papal _patriarchal_ jurisdiction, accepting the Pope of Rome only as supreme pontiff of all Christendom.

There are or have been traditionally Latin patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem. You said the C-ople patriarchate was abolished in 1965; I would agree that this (Latin) patriarchate would be abolished as a sign of good will in the ongoing dance of reunification.

These patriarchs have several important rights and duties: summoning their bishops in synod; ordaining bishops; consecrating holy chrism (oil); imposing the omoplorion (pallium) - an important part of the ordination of bishops; receiving a tithe of the episcopal income; deposing bishops in synod; having a legate in Rome and the right to bear their patriarchal cross anywhere in the world except for at Rome. These are all signs of considerable independence of rule and governance.

There are, within the Roman Church, a number of lesser patriarchs. These are really complimentary titles traditionally bestowed to bishops of certain locations:

1. Toledo (the Isidorian Rite)
2. Venice
3. Aquileia (now defunct)
4. The West Indies (the Americas, basically)
5. The East Indies (India and Southeast Asia)
6. Lisbon
7. Lyons
8. Pisa

The lesser patriarchs may have varying and traditional rights, but are all 100% subject to the Roman Patriarch. They have no real power or authority beyond that of any other bishop.

IB is lucky, England being Catholic, that the Patriarchy of Canterbury never disappeared. It seems that the Patriarchs of that city wielded considerable power over the English church's officials, and even the crown itself. The situation *there*, then, has two Catholic patriarchies all in one smallish island! Though not specifically listed as one of the greater patriarchs, this last one is certainly not a lesser patriarch! I would posit that *there*, Canterbury is one of the major patriarchates, since it is almost as old as Glastonbury.

Elemtilas 20:32, 6 December 2006 (PST)

Wouldn't Lisbon also be Isidorian Rite? Also, what about the Ambrosian Rite?. --Sikulu 04:01, 7 December 2006 (PST)

Something I don't understand - you mention a Latin patriarch of Constantinople. Do the Byzantines go without a patriarch of their own? Also, the bishop of Milan is not a (Latin) patriarch rather than Venice, in relation to the Ambrosians?

Some questions mainly related to my ignorance of the situation; who are the Maronites? And who is the current Patriarch of Glastonbury anyway? Does the British Church have a episcopalian/diocesan (not! the same) structure? And someone - I think, correct me if I'm wrong - said the British Church placed more emphasis on the monasteries/abbots - where did this fit in? And also, do abroad people still say "Cambrian Rite"? Or do they prefer "British Rite"? (I think especially of Ireland and the NAL, where there may be reasons) --Quentin 12:12, 7 December 2006 (PST)

For Sikulu, yes, Portugal (and her colonial descendants) would probably be Isidorian. The "Ambrosian Rite" is one of many local variations in liturgical form of the Roman Catholic Church. It is particular to the archdiocese of Milan. It probably exists *there* as well. Other local rites and uses have become defunct or abandonned over the centuries.

For Quentin, think of all these patriarchs as two parallel lines. In the distant past, before the Great Schism, the Christian Church was united and certain places had patriarchs that governed large areas of territory. These places historically were Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Enter the Great Schism. When the Western and Eastern churches parted company, the Alexandrian and Antiochan patriarchs became Eastern Orthodox, while the Roman patriarch became Western Catholic. As the power of the new imperial city, Constantinople, grew its prestige demanded that a new patriarchy be made, becoming something of an Orthodox rival to the old Catholic patriarch of Rome. Other patriarchies in Armenia and Babylon had also come into being. As time went on, some parts of these Eastern churches returned to union with Rome. These became the uniate churches and they have their own Latin patriarchs. There parallel lines are simply a line of Orthodox patriarchs and a line of Catholic patriarchs.

The patriarch of Venice is one of the lesser patriarchies, in the Roman Catholic Church. This one, and the patriarchs of Lisbon and the two Indies are totally powerless, ceremonial titles. They are not "real" patriarchs that have any kind of independent power like Glastonbury or Canterbury. The Latin patriarchy of Constantinople was set up in parallel to the Orthodox Church's Ecumenical Patriarch (the first among equals of the Orthodox Church), as a number of Greek Orthodox had returned to Catholicism. If it should be done away with, it is probably done for either political reasons (in order to placate or soothe the Orthodox hierarchy) or perhaps as a step towards reunification (the question would rise, which Patriarch of C-ople should be the real one if unification took place?).

The Maronite Catholic Church is found in Lebanon. I don't think we've ever named the Patriarchal Abbot. The British Church / Cambrian Rite is monastic in nature and structure. This means that abbeys serve as the principle centers of religious and spiritual activity rather than cathedrals. British abbots (both in Kemr and England) seem to have rights and powers similar to those of bishops, including typical episcopal regalia (the mitre and crosier). In Kemr this was never a problem as there weren't any resident bishops with great cathedrals. It has been the cause of some strife in other lands where abbots assumed more and more power at the expence of the bishops. I'm sure that this situation has been reformed.

"British Rite" is probably the prefered form, and certainly makes some sense. "Cambrian Rite", an anglification of the Brithenig form Rhid Kemruis (or something like that), which Andrew originally called the Kemrese Rite. I am not sure what the official name of the church is, but might suspect something like British Catholic Church, in order not to confine it to a single nationality.

Elemtilas 15:19, 7 December 2006 (PST)

This is very interesting. I have a question. Under whose authority does the Catholic Church in Scotland fall? Zahir 20:26, 7 December 2006 (PST)

Which one? I assume that the Breathanach speakers would be mostly British Rite, and the others would be mostly Roman Rite. Perhaps the Celtic speakers might be split between the two. There may be a British Rite abbot at *there's* Glasgow (or something) and a Roman Catholic (Arch)bishop at St Andrews (or something). --Sikulu 01:45, 8 December 2006 (PST)

Specifically, I was asking about which Patriarch's authority extended over Scotland? Zahir 02:23, 8 December 2006 (PST)

I guess it depend largely on how, or even if, Scotland is split between British and Roman. Elemtilas 02:31, 8 December 2006 (PST)

I'd expect it would be. There might be some (considerable) overlap of the two jurisdictions though. --Sikulu 04:25, 8 December 2006 (PST)

So Scotland falls under the Patriarchies of Canterbury and Glastonbury, depending upon specific jurisdiction? Zahir 08:33, 8 December 2006 (PST)

Just like *here*. For example, here in Washington, a Roman Catholic lives in the Archdiocese of Washington and the head of that territory is Archbishop Wuerl, while a Byzantine Catholic next door lives in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh (PA), Eparchy of Passaic (NJ). The head of the territory is Metropolitan Archeparch Basil, and the local leader is Bishop Andrew, Eparch of Passaic.

I think it would largely depend on the relative numbers of this or that rite in Scotland. If there are very few Roman Catholics, then probably one bishop would suffice. I certainly think it would make sense for at least western Scotland (which used to be the northern marches of Kemr and now the abode of the Breathanach speakers) to be British Rite, and probably the far north Celtic speaking areas too. Elemtilas 05:42, 9 December 2006 (PST)

Who is the Patriarch of Glastonbury at the moment? In relation to your previous comment, Patraic, how is the church in America set up? How strong are the Calvinists in Scotland? Where the Latin Rite is used in Scotland, is the English use used? What about the NAL's English provinces? And her Native provinces where English is spoken? And what is religion in general like in Nunavik? I can see there being a mixture of Jews (from MS), Iberian Rite people (from MS) maybe some Latin Rite from MS and probably not the English Use. --Quentin 07:30, 9 December 2006 (PST)

The Patriarch of Glastonbury has not been identified yet. I did consider an obit earlier this year for a person who was a cross between Rowan Williams and Brother Roger of Taize. His name is Rhyssin Maor. This name can be adopted for the Patriarch. He is an ex-army corporal from the GWII (possibly later), entered holy orders and became a spiritual leader in Lla Ferch before being nominated to the throne of St Joseph of Arimathea. - AndrewSmith 11:37, 10 December 2006 (PST)

I like it! Will now have to consider typical dress for British Rite clergy... Elemtilas 17:50, 10 December 2006 (PST)

White, probably, with a hint of either red or green depending on rank. --Sikulu 01:09, 11 December 2006 (PST)

I guess what I meant was overall style. *Here*, there are styles typical of the great churches. See http://ethiopianorthodox.org/images/images/todaysphoto/patriarchs/index.htm for typical Ethiopian orthodoxy; http://www.azad-hye.net/news/viewnews.asp?newsId=833alh86 for Armenian orthodoxy; http://www.ecclesia.gr/english/EnArchbishop/EnPhotos/EnPhotos.html for Greek orthodoxy; http://www.britishorthodox.org/113j.php British orthodoxy; http://www.stbasil.org/my_stbasil_photo.html for Byzantine catholicism; http://www.wvdiocese.org/photoalbum/ireland.asp for Roman catholicism. I very much hope that the style is not as plain as the RC. Elemtilas 19:43, 11 December 2006 (PST)

Sorry. I thought you meant how everything was coloured. Since the British Catholic Church is mostly monastic, perhaps white ceremonial habbits with coloured scarf things (I forget their name) (I think I've been watching too much Cadfael on TV). Perhaps they might have some form of headgear (but its unlikely). (Don't forget the peculiar tonsure.) --Sikulu 03:21, 12 December 2006 (PST)

Question on Ecumenism

Does Taizé (or, for that matter, the EKD) exist *there*? --Quentin 02:02, 11 December 2006 (PST)

We know that Ecumenism and Reunification are important movements / ideologies / goals within various Christian chrurches in IB. We know already that the various (Eastern) Uniate churches reunified with Rome; the Holy Roman Episcopal Lutheran Church is a "Protestant" Uniate (some others may be possible); the RCC and EO are moving towards reunification. I would suspect that an ecumenical movement like Taize exists *there*, and possibly even in more than one place.

The EKD appears to be some kind of union of Protestant (Lutheran) German churches. We know that the Lutheran Church exists *there* in parts of the HRE and the SR. I think Bavaria, Baden and Wurtemburg (southern Germany) are largely Catholic, though I could be wrong on that. Elemtilas 14:48, 15 December 2006 (PST)

Churches of the NAL

I am also wandering about the particulars of the NAL's various churches. I'd expect there to be some (quite considerable) overlap in some provinces. The smaller provinces, like Rhode Island, or ones with a smallish population would probably only have one or two bishop(s)/abbot(s) (as appropriate) per denomination; the big provinces, like Ontario, or ones with a larger population, like Virginia, would probably have more (seven or eight, maybe more), depending on the population, with one being head of that group. There would probably be the odd Archbishop (or equivalent version) around too. --Sikulu 01:59, 11 December 2006 (PST)

The NAL is a much more fluid country than the homelands, so overlap is a fact of life; yet it is not so fluid as the US. I suspect that most the NAL is pretty strongly British Catholic or English (Roman) Catholic. The big cities will almost certainly have a large number of diverse churches (including some of the non-traditional churches - Mormon, Christine, etc), and therefore overlapping jurisdictions, like you get *here*. Once you get into the hinterlands, though, I have the feeling that it will seem much more like whatever the mother country is like.

As for the Roman Catholic hierarchy, I suspect that major metropolitan areas will have been elevated to archbishoprics. As is the case *here* with Washington's archbishop, the archbishop of Philadelphia is traditionally made a cardinal soon after his investiture. *Here*, the US is divided into ecclesiastic "provinces", not quite corresponding to states. *There*, probably many more of the NAL's provinces will be amalgamated into rather large ecclesiastic provinces.

Naturally, the British Catholic structure will be as monastic as it is in Kemr. I suspect that areas of heavy Kemrese, Irish and Scottish settlement (like, a lot of Appalachia) will be predominantly British Rite and therefore dotted by abbatial centrefs. There is probably some kind of Synod of American Abbots that acts much the same as our Council of American Bishops.

For Orthodoxy, I suspect the situation will be much like *here*: all the Americas are probably one great eparchy (with the possible exception of Alaska, which has already got its traditional boundaries).

Elemtilas 19:43, 11 December 2006 (PST)

Actually, America's Orthodox Churches generally fall under the Patriarchies of the Old World--Bulgarian, Greek, Romanian, etc. The only exception really is the Russian Orthodox Church in America, which soon after the Revolution was declared more-or-less independent by the head of the Russian Church (most other Orthodox churches do not consider that the Patriarch has the right to do this). Thus although most Orthodox Churchs share communion, they are all mixed up together in terms of actual territory.

I am of course speaking of the US, not the NAL. The situation might be quite different *there* (not least because the Church was not persecuted under the SNOR). Zahir 22:43, 11 December 2006 (PST)

Discussion on Traditionalist Catholics

The existence of the Old/Traditionalist catholics in IB was something I came up with a few years back to explain why the Zouaves went to Avignon during the second great war. IB's catholic church was not as developt back then and their existence was based on the idea of a rejection of Vatican 2 as we know it here. Since it as been decided that the council was quite different, I decided to make the Traditionalist bit of canon make sense somehow.

Note that some aspects are based on the real life practices of a group of ultra-catholics in Quebec called the "White Berets". The bit about the bicycle is from them.--Marc Pasquin 18:44, 16 January 2007 (PST)

----

Marc, I just wanted to say that I like this very much. Too bad they are so Romano-centric. I'm sure there are like minded folks of all rites! (And to be honest, the Roman Rite can't hold a candle, historically speaking, to the British! ^_^ ) It should probably be added to the article on Catholicism, though. (done)

A couple minor points:

Re Dietary rules: Abstaining from meat on Wednesday, Fridays & Saturday. Fasting from midnight on the day before communion, this is common practice among even non"Traditionalist" Catholics. There have been no changes or modifications to the rules governing fasting or abstention. (I've stricken the particular paragraph from the article.)

Re Segregation of genders: woman and men, when in church, should sit on different side of the room. Each Unmarried person should be accompanied by married chaperon of its own when spending time with another person of the other gender, I think this might be a regional practice more than a particularly "Traditionalist" one. It might be that Traditionalists would enforce this tradition where it is changing, though.

I would rather not even suggest a connexion with the "Old Catholic" movement of *here*, there being none *there* that I'm aware of (could be wrong though). The two churches, *here* and *there*, couldn't be more different. While the Old Catholic movement is not new, it has certainly gained an impetus post Vatican II, and neither of the Vatican Councils happened *there* they way they did *here*. (I've stricken the reference to Old Catholics.)

All in all, I'd say an excellent addition to our understanding of IB religious tradition.

Elemtilas 20:05, 16 January 2007 (PST)

I think this very interesting, the kind of social curlicue that happens with large movements and groups, especially over time. Many thanks for including this! Zahir 22:07, 16 January 2007 (PST)

----

I've added the article to a section w/i the Catholicism article (it belongs there, really, rather than on its own). Elemtilas 20:45, 30 August 2007 (PDT)

Rites, Rites, and More Rites

So my work with the Orthodox Church inevitably brings me to tidbits scattered across IB that deal with Eastern Rite Catholicism (primarily Byzantine Rite). One thing that strikes me is that its going to be in different areas from our world; Galicia's page mentions that Ukrainians are defined by their adherence to Orthodoxy, so that leads me to believe that the Union of Brest counterpart in IB failed except for in Galicia and even then it's not the dominant branch of Christianity there. Hungary, as a collection of Ottoman provinces, is never going to force its Orthodox populace (mostly the Rusyns in the northeast with some other Slavs and Vlachs scattered around) into Uniatism because the Ottomans would never allow it. That makes that Karpatia in the RTC would remain Orthodox.

But at the same time, so much of Uniatism's spread is different. Most of Dalmatia as "Dalmatian Orthodox Christians in Communion with Rome" are probably using a Latinized Byzantine Rite in their vernacular. A Uniate minority (if you compare the members of the Romanian Orthodox Church with Romania's population, less than 1.5 million could be Uniates) controls Oltenia. Syria & Lebanon seem no different from OTL. Meanwhile, Dalmatia was a partner in colonizing so much of West Africa. The Gold Coast, Togo, Kongo, they would all be split between Latin Riters and Eastern Riters.

I'll continue my questions later, sorry to have to cut it short.

Where was I? Right, so West & Central Africa are going to have huge populations of Uniates using the Dalmatian rescension of the liturgies & praxis of the Byzantine Rite. I'm sure it was a race to convert the natives between Latin Rite Austrians & Byzantine Rite Dalmatians, but I think this will have huge ramifications on the culture of colonial & postcolonial West Africa.

Also, the bits on the various Eastern Catholic Churches are pulled from Wikipedia/real life. With the group's permission, I'd like to change what's listed to better reflect IB countries. Speaking of IB, I noticed that Croatia is listed under the Eastern Rite section as using the "Glagolitic Mass." It's a fascinating concept; Catholics in the Balkans (so mostly just Croats & Slovenes) were allowed to celebrate the Latin Mass in Church Slavonic writren in the Glagolitic script. They'd be firmly Latin Rite, except I imagine that they'd be exempted from any liturgical changes a la Vatican II, and their liturgy would be frozen in the 15th, 16th, or 17th Century. Alll in all, I think it's a great idea, really unique.

There's not much on what the Lutheran Uniate mass is like. I imagine it'd look like the highest church Lutheran Mass you could find in our world with a commemoration of the Pope thrown in and anything mentioning the communion being a symbol thrown out and a proper profession that the bread & wine are truly the body & blood must be added (but no epiclesis like we Easterners). It needs theological uniformity. Now, the Isidorian Rite is another story completely. I take it that it's just the Mozarabic Rite from our world tweaked. I'd like to try my hand at envisioning what this entails. There needs to be a reason it was named after an Isidore (I take it to be after St. Isidore of Seville) unlike in our world. I have some ideas on Aragon's page on how to make it more "Jewish" & "Moorish." Here's the thing with that; there's no way the Papacy is going to approve any liturgical innovations that are obviously syncretic or diverse for the sake of diversity. If anything, the Iberians need to make a damn good case as to why any changes they want to make to the Mozarabic are beneficial. That's a tough sell to a man put in place to keep everything as uniform. I imagine the reasoning is to better reach out to the Jews & Muslims of the former Al-Andalus to bring them into the true faith.

As for the Kemrese Rite, just about nothing is known about the liturgies of the Church in the Isles. There might not be enough for all of us (okay there are only two people who are going to read this) to come together and rearrange everything we know about the early medieval Church to make a rite. I imagine all in all that there's not a whole lot of differences between the Kemrese & Latin rites.

All in all, IB Catholicism needs a lot of fleshing out and I find it ironc that an Orthodox man is the one proposing to do it. Misterxeight 16:12, 5 August 2016 (PDT)

Armenian Rite Catholicism

It's a lot bigger than our world. I've done stats for about 40 countries, and I got about 1.5 million Armenian Catholics. There could be even more since I haven't even touched North America yet and have barely done South America. Misterxeight 10:10, 3 January 2018 (PST)