www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Understanding Byzantine Ecclesial Structures

Howdy,
First let me preface this by saying I'm a Latin Rite Catholic who's trying to figure out some of the structural elements of the Eastern Rites.
Okay, let me try to explain it as I currently understand it, and then please correct me!

There are several (families?) of rites:

• Latin/Roman
• Alexandrian
• Antiochene
• Armenian
• Byzantine
• Chaldean

Each of these is headed by a Patriarch. They also have sub-rites(?). For example, the Byzantine has:

• Albanian
• Belarussian
• Bulgarian
• Greek
• (Greek) Melkite
• Hungarian
• Italo-Albanian
• Krizevcian
• Macedonian
• Romanian
• Russian
• Ruthenian
• Slovakian
• Ukrainian

Each of these then has some number of jurisdictions under it (eparchy, archeparchy, etc.). So for a given rite (such as Byzantine) you could draw it something like this: (very partial, just to show structure)
Byzantine - Patriarch
Albanian

• Albania Meridionale

...
(Greek) Melkite

• Antioch (patr.): Alep, Bosra, Damas
• Homs: Lattaquie
• Bairut e Gibail, Tyr: Baalbek, Baniyas, Saida, Tripoli del Libano, Zahleh e Furzol
• Petra e Philadelphia
• Akka
• Newton
• ...

Ok, so how badly did I mess it up?

Thanks,
David

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: davidc ]

Dear David,

Thanks for the inquiry, and a good beginning in understanding the family of Churches that make up the Church of God.

The best way to understand how all these Churches relate to one another is to get to know them, and to study their history.

One small point, is that these are all "Churches" more than "Rites". The "Rite" is often used to describe the Liturgy employed by the community. But each also has not only a "Liturgy" but also a history, discipline, custom, and tradition which encompasses their whole spiritual way of life.

So, these are all "Churches" with their own patrimony, rather than "Rites" of the Church.

Just one thought...

And I am delighted to hear of your interest in the Church, and studying the great treasury of the Catholic communion beyond the Latin Church.

Elias

Dear David,

Yes, I agree with our Venerable Father Hieromonk Elias.

The easiest way I've always found is to start with a Particular Church and move from there.

There is the Ukrainian Catholic Church, for example.

Its Rite is the Byzantine-Ukrainian (some are making an argument for a "Kyivan" Rite).

So the Ukrainian Catholics follow a Rite that stems largely from the Byzantine Church and tradition, which has been transformed by the historic Slavonic traditions and contemporary Ukrainian culture.

That "culture" is not "perogies" and the like, but a very real East Slavic spiritual contribution to the Byzantine tradition.

There is also a Ukrainian Latin Catholic Church today with its own hierarchy and organization in western Ukraine.

The Armenian Church is another example. And this Church follows its own unique Armenian Rite and traditions, which are not an amalgam of a more "universal" church (Rome or Constantinople) with a local tradition. It is, at one and the same time, a universal and local Armenian tradition.

And the same may be done, by way of analytical breakdown, for all other Eastern Particular Churches.

Alex

Thanks for the help.

Besides just for my own knowledge, I'm also trying to figure out how I could represent the structure on a web site. I'm slowly expanding my existing site to include more heavily Eastern countries and I realize my current method really isn't appropriate for them.
So with that in mind, does the structure above sound somewhat reasonable? Also what is a better term for "rite" and "sub-rite" that I was using before? I hesitate to just call them a "Church" because I strongly suspect it'll be misunderstood!

Peace,
David

David,

You are partially right. Remember a rite is a way of doing things liturgically. A particular Church may have many rites like the Latin Church or several particular Churches may share a single rite like the many that share the Byzantine rite. A Patriarch is head of a particular Church, not a rite.

A Liturgical outline would look this:

FAMILY
Rite
1.Use/Recension

LATIN
Roman
1. Novus Ordo
2. Tridentine
3. Anglican
4. Lyonnaise
5. Carthusian
6. Dominican
7. Carmelite
Ambrosian
Bragan
Mozarabic

ALEXANDRIAN
Coptic
Ethiopian/Eritrean

ANTIOCHIAN
Maronite
Syriac
1. Syriac
2. Syro-Malankar

CHALDEAN
Chaldean
1. Chaldean
2. Syro-Malabar

BYZANTINE
Byzantine
1. Greek
2. Slavonic-Ruthenian
3. Slavonic-Russian

ARMENIAN
Armenian


A hierarchal outline would look like this:

Church
Hierarchal status


Latin Catholic Church
Patriarchate of Rome and All the West

Coptic Catholic Church
Patriarchate of Alexandria of the Copts

Melkite Catholic Church
Patriarchate of Antioch of the Melkites

Maronite Catholic Church
Patriarchate of Antioch of the Maronites

Syriac Catholic Church
Patriarchate of Antioch of the Syriacs

Chaldean Catholic Church
Patriarchate of Babylon of the Chaldeans

Armenian Catholic Church
Patriarchate of Cilicia of the Armenians

Ukrainian Catholic Church
Major Archeparchate of Lviv

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Major Archeparchate of Ernakaulam-Angamaly

Romanian Catholic Church
Metropolitanate of Alba Iulia-Fagaras

Syro-Malankar Catholic Church
Metropolitanate of Trivandrum

Ethiopian Catholic Church
Metropolitanate of Addis Ababa

Ruthenian Catholic Church (USA)
Metropolitanate of Pittsburgh

Ruthenian Catholic Church (Ukraine)
Eparchy of Mukachevo, Exarchy of Prague

Croatian Catholic Church
Eparchy of Krizeci

Slovak Catholic Church
Eparchy of Presov, Eparchy of Toronto, Exarchy of Kosice

Hungarian Catholic Church
Eparchy of Hadudorog

Italo-Albanian/Greek Catholic Church
Eparchy of Piana, Eparchy of Lungro, Exarchal Abbey of Grottaferrata

Greek Catholic Church
Exarchy of Athens

Bulgarian Catholic Church
Exarchy of Sofia

Macedonian Catholic Church
Exarchy of Skopje

Russian, Belarusan, and Albanian Greek Catholic faithful do not currently have hierarchies.

I would also add do not hesitate to use the term Churches, particular Churches, or Churches sui iuris becasue that is exactly what they are. One only has to look a the Codes of Canon Law, Latin and Eastern to see this is how they are refered to. To call them rites is inaccurate and can only lead to confusion. A pet peave of mine is when someone uses the term the Eastern Rite, there is no such thing. There are several rites used by Eastern Catholic Churches. As Alex correctly states the Byzantine Rite is a liturgical term and used correctly enough when talking about Liturgy. However, it is not a juridic entity. Only a particular Church is a juridic entity. This in no way detracts form the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic Church over which the Pope exercises his role as Supreme Pontiff, but clearly illustrates the relationship they have to one another and to the Pope.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Dear David,

I see a greater problem with using "Sub-rite" than "Rite."

How is the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite a "Sub-rite?"

It is an amalgam of the Byzantine Rite with the traditions of the Kyivan Church, with Ukrainian cultural aspects thrown in for good measure.

And this Church is over 10 million strong, the largest Eastern Catholic Church around. So "Sub-rite" doesn't sound too good here . . .

A "Rite" doesn't exist without a Particular Church. So one can really only contemplate it in theory.

You could and should explain what a "Particular Church" is in accordance with the Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Churches.

Then as you outline the Churches, you could add a note about which Rite is used by them.

The Georgian Catholic Church is of the Byzantine-Georgian Rite with elements of its former Miaphysitic past in it as well (e.g. Saints) and Georgian spirituality.

The "Byzantine Rite" as such is something that only exists in theory and not in reality, apart from its main inculturations.

Alex

Oh boy - just as I am beginning to get hold of the ramifications of where everyone fits in [ and I take it slowly due to grey hairs] someone comes along and asks a learned question and I am left with my mouth hanging wide open again as I am bombarded with information

Dear Angela,

Well, way back when, Highland Scotland itself was of the Celtic/Columban Church of the Celtic Rite.

Scotland had both the Latin and the Celtic Churches, with their own respective Calendars as well as markedly different spiritualities and traditions.

When Robert the Bruce convened his council, he not only invited to it Archbishop Lambertsen of St Andrew's, representing the Latin Church, but also a Celtic Monk representing the ancient See of Iona of the northern Celtic Church.

When the Celtic Church slowly disappeared, many Celtic elements became fused with the now officially governing Latin Church and this holds true to this day.

The ONLY qualification I would give to Lance's outline is that instead of "Latin" I would use "Western."

The Mozarabic Church formerly never was under the Latin Patriarchate and even joined the Eastern Churches in arguing against a Roman Primacy over it and other Churches outside the Patriarchate of Rome.

Liturgically, that Church is of the northern Gothic tradition. The Anglican tradition is an amalgam of Sarum, Hereford and Bangor, variations on the Latin Rite to be sure, but with their specific particularities.

The Milanese Church of St Ambrose, although Western, actually had many Byzantine influences. Scholars today have also determined that its age-old reference to "Pope" in their liturgy actually referred not to the Pope of Rome, but to their own Primate, the Archbishop of Milan!

The Premonstratensians and the Cistercians also have their own independent liturgical Rites, which are a variation, of course, of the Latin Rite. (The Cistercians, for example, always pray to Our Lady with knuckles on the floor.)

There was the Church of Trondheim with its Scandinavian Rite, developed under St Anskar of Hamburg (who envisioned a northern Patriarchate there) and this Rite was extended into the English Channel Islands as well.

Martin Luther also brought in some aspects of this Rite into his development of a German Church.

There was also heavy borrowing between the Churches and their Rites and traditions. The Titles and jurisdictional aspects of the Pope of Rome were actually taken wholesale from the Pope of Alexandria, the first to call himself that way. There are many others.

The Roman Liturgy borrowed heavily from the Benedictine monastic tradition in developing its Horologion. And this latter tradition was, in fact, heavily influenced by Cassian's relations about the Coptic Church and monks of the Thebaid )e.g. the use of "O God come to my assistance, the 12 Psalms etc.).

Ultimately, the only way to speak of these things is via reference to a Church, a living embodiment of, in almost all cases, more than one Rite plus admixtures of traditions borrowed from other Churches.

"Particular Church" is a dynamic concept and living entity. The fact that it borrows and is transformed on a constant basis is proof of it being alive!

In the Ukrainian case, although the rite is "Byzantine-Ukrainian/Kyivan" with cultural elements, the fact is that the enduring presence of Latin elements is also something that has come to influence its character as well.

Alex

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Ok, let me try a simple one, Alexandrian.

Alexandrian Catholic Church
|
+-Coptic Catholic Church
| |
| Patriarchate of Alexandria of the Copts
| |
| +-Alessandria, Ismayliah, Luqsor, Minya, Sohag
|
Ethiopian Catholic Church
|
Metropolitanate of Addis Ababa
|
+-Adigrat, Asmara, Barentu, Keren

Does that look about right to describe just the structure (without regard to the liturgy per se)?

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: davidc ]

Dear David,

Ah, this thing doesn't get any simpler . . .

There is a "Geez Catholic Church" to which both Ethiopians and Eritreans belong following the "Geez Rite."

There is a Coptic Catholic Church, which is of the Alexandrian Rite.

The rest of the stuff I think you have about rite . . .

Alex

Alex,
Does the Geez C.C. have any jurisdictions (dioceses, eparchies, etc.)?
What I was trying to show (kinda hard in this setup) is the Alexandrian C.C. is the top level with Coptic C.C. and Ethiopian C.C. as two branches coming off each with its own metropolitan and suffragans under them.

Peace,
David

Dear David,

Yes, you are asking a serious question that deserves to be treated comprehensively and adequately.

I will see what I can dig up for you. Perhaps Lance could be of assistance and could offer his invaluable advice.

You've uncovered a great big gap in my own knowledge of these matters!

And that's both a good and a bad thing!

I'll get to work on it . . .

Alex

Alex,
Thanks for all your help.
At this point I'm really just trying to get a mental image of the structures so I can eventually come up with a way to display it on my site. The good news is I don't anticipate being far enough along with the site itself to implement anything for a month or two anyway. (At the moment I'm slowing entering the data for Africa & Asia.)
FYI, my primary source for most of the site and the structures of the Eastern side is the Annuario Pontificio.
FYI2, the Eastern side of things in the Americas is already on the site - but very poorly shown structure-wise.

Peace,
David

I think we owe David a great big congratulation!!!!!


Of all my time here I have never seen Alex stumped.

What we could not do, a new comer has done!


Your brother in Christ,
the other David

Dear David,

Well, you've stumped me again!

I don't know how to reply to your post!

Now the two of you can be happy.

God bless, and I'm back on this Geez thing . . .

Alex