what other Catholic Church considers the Pope its head?
there is one Catholic Church, with many rites (Roman-Catholic, Greek-Catholic, recently maybe Trident-Catholic,
but not officially yet).
But I seem to remember that there were Churches with "catholic" with name which didn't consider Pope as its head.
So list is Roman and Greek Catholic.
-- Taw
See
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/eastcath.htm for a list of Eastern rites within the Catholic church. Other churches like the Old Catholic Church split from the Catholic after Vatican I and don't aknowledge the pope. -rmhermen
The eastern rites are not part of the Roman Catholic church -they are part of the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church should call itself (and sometimes does) the Roman ritre of the Catholic church. See Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 1964. -rmhermen
Are you sure about that? -- as far as I am aware the Eastern rites
are part of the Roman Catholic Church; since they accept the Bishop of Rome as head of the church. The Roman Catholic Church has several rites, the Western ones (Roman or Latin, Ambrosian and Mozarabic) and the Eastern. --
Simon J Kissane
They're all part of the Catholic Church. Roman is, specifically, the Latin Rite, but 'Rite' is a tricky term. In the case of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites it actually means only "approved variation in ritual scheme for certain dioceses only" - you can't have an authorized mass in the Ambrosian Rite anywhere outside the region of Milan. The Eastern Rites, on the other hand, not only have different liturgies, but have separate organizational structures, i.e., churches, often with separate patriarchs (at least the Melkites and the Maronites have 'em - the Ukrainians want one), but they are in "union" with the Pope as supreme Patriarch. Technically "Roman" refers only to the Latin rite, but it gets applied to everyone in union with the Pope by extension. Latin rite Catholics mainly don't notice, and Eastern rite Catholics fume about it. Can you tell I know a bunch of Eastern Rite folks? --
MichaelTinkler
Removed:
Whether someone was a Pope or Antipope is mostly a matter of a historian's personal opinion. No, it is not a 'personal' opinion of a (one) historian. It is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church about itself (which certainly involved consulting historians), discussed at great length in many individual cases by individual historians. In many cases there is no detailed discussion by historians because the person was very obviously an antipope. There are remarkably few difficult cases. This is not true, and should have been on the 'antipope' entry anyway; I'm going to run check and see if I need to delete it from there, too. --
MichaelTinkler
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)