www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Need more info to explain why Eastern "Rite" Church is incorrect

I wrote this on a social media site. Because of the venue, it was intended as a brief overview and not a definitive explanation. I didn't know it when I posted it, but Fr. John Zuhlsdorf recently posted on this topic and got a lot of responses. I've been asked to provide more background and history than even what is there.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/quaeritur-are-eastern-catholics-also-roman-catholics/

One challenge in particular was, "If the term is really so demeaning or sloppy rather strange that it can be found it documents such as http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...9641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html. You would think a Pope would be careful enough in a document on the Eastern Churches not to use terms considered pejorative."

I quoted Canons 27 and 28 of the CCEO to explain how an Eastern Catholic belongs to a Church sui iuris. This is getting a little long already, so I'll avoid posting the rest of my responses. Is anyone here able to provide more?

CDB,

You may want to look at Churches & Rites

Although it was written about 6 years ago and there is some dated info in it, most is still accurate.

Many years,

Neil

(Warning - it is a long and detailed thread and, beginning with about the 8th or 9th post to the thread, there are a series of coding errors that resulted when we made some software changes here at the site. I set out to repair the thread a few years ago and got side-tracked. If need be, I can provide a copy for you of the text from that point - but I think that much of what you want is in the first 7 or 8 posts.)

When anyone expects that Popes will be perfect in all things, one is in for a major disappointment. But, in looking at that document, there really isn't as much wrong with it as your correspondent suggests.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that you (and probably at least some of those responding on Father Z's site) are arguing over the wrong terminology - being uptight about the terms 'Eastern Rite' or 'Eastern Rite Catholics'. That was not the crux of the historical issue.

As collective terms, they are acceptable - we of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches 'are of' (read as 'use') Eastern (and Oriental) Rites and, consequently, can be collectively termed Eastern Catholics or Eastern (and Oriental) Rite Catholics - Catholics who worship according to the Eastern or Oriental Rites. Similarly, those who serve according to the Latin, Ambrosian (or Milanese), Bragan, and Mozarabic Rites can be collectively termed Western Rite Catholics or Western Catholics.

The common parlance, pre-Vatican II, would have spoken of me and my co-religionists as being 'Melkite Rite Catholics'; those of your Church would have been called 'Ukrainian Rite Catholics'; those of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, 'Ruthenian Rite Catholics', and so on. Our identity was perceived as Catholic - but merely of a different Rite.

It was only in the aftermath of the presentations at the Council that we were recognized to be Catholics of discrete Churches. I was a Melkite Catholic, a member of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, a Catholic whose spirituality and liturgical praxis was lived in accord with the Byzantine Rite - which was the Rite utilized by 14 Churches. There neither was nor is a 'Melkite Rite', a 'Ukrainian Rite', or a 'Ruthenian Rite'.


I would suggest that the comparison of the use of 'Rite' to the use of 'boy' in referring to African Americans would best be deleted from your presentation. It's an example of the sort that raises hackles - and hackles is an understatement as to the reaction it will garner.

As mistreated as Eastern Catholics were under the regimes of Archbishop John Ireland and some other Latin hierarchs, it cannot and should not be equated with the treatment of Blacks in this country.

Comparisons that use such as that, the Holocaust, the Irish Famine, the Ukrainian Holdomor, the Armenian Genocide, the Trail of Tears, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Gulag, the Rape of Nanking, the Bangladesh Atrocities, the Rwandan Genocide, and other, similar, atrocities fail in and of themselves.

There is no comparison to be had when events such as those are put up against what our ancestors endured in the attempts to latinize their religious praxis and the deprivation of their heritage - by comparison, ours were inconveniences, much as we suffered spiritually and culturally by them.

Many years,

Neil

Was it at Vat II that you became a Melkite Catholic? Or that the west again recognized that you were a Melkite Catholic, having sufficiently left its Manifest Destiny mindset to remember and respect your history?

Thank you for honestly and directly sharing your opinion on my comparison. Had I compared it to how blacks were treated during slavery as beasts of the field, I would agree that it would be a hyperbolic exaggerationn and an inappropriate comparison. My comparison was to a more insidious post-slavery cultural racism, limited to one non-violent activity in which humanity was recognized but simultaneously minimized, so I believe it is an apt comparison for a casual and brief setting which most people could identify with. I don't expect you to agree with me and I will take into consideration in the future that the possibility of others sharing your opinion would potentially make it an ineffective comparison even if I believed it accurate.

I will look at the link you gave me to see what more is there. Thank you for sharing it!

There is nothing wrong with it at all -- "CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE" -- it is correct.

This is also correct and clearly explains the legitimate use of the term Rite.


Within the realm of a theological, as contrasted with canonical/legal, ecclesiology it is correct and proper to say we are "Catholic but merely of a different Rite" (or leave out the word "merely" for a different emphasis). Those that would place Eastern, or Western, or Melkite, or Ukrainian or Roman etc. above or in contrast to Catholic are as wrong as those who would obliterate the distinction of the churches of the Catholic Church. These churches, in the intrinsic and proper theological sense, are constituted as the baptized (and catechumens) gathered around their bishop, i.e. eparchies or dioceses in contrast to Metropolitan or even Patriarchal "churches".


This was an important emphasis and clarification of Catholic ecclesiology.

Melkite, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Roman etc. Catholic are proper designations as long as they are not equated with or seen in opposition to the sense of the One, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church (caps for emphasis).

Those terms could be used depending on the various meanings of rite. It is probably clearer, however, to refer to the various different Recensions of the Byzantine Rite.


Not to carry a comparison or analogy too far but, allowing for some difference of course, in terms of the ecclesiology I outlined above: If the World as a Global Nation is the Catholic Church, and each nation is one of the Catholic churches, then the Rites would be something like a language. For instance, Spanish (rite) is the language of Mexico and Chile and Ecuador (churches). I can refer to Spanish speakers of the World without implying that they are not members of one or several nations.

Too true referring to external influences; true also, unfortunately, that the wounds of deprivation were sometimes self inflicted.

CDB,

No, Melkites were already Melkite Catholics and members of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church. We knew that; Rome did not or had chosen not to know it.

At VII, the Latin Church as an entity - in Council with the other Churches of the Catholic Communion - acknowledged that Melkite Catholics were members of a discrete, Particular Church sui iuris (and that Ukrainian Catholics, Ruthenian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc, were likewise members of their respective, discrete, Particular Churches sui iuris.

In my opinion, it would be a stretch to consider that it (recognition of that fact) was being done again, since it isn't clear that such had been the case since the early centuries - when distance and communication effectively made each bishopric a 'Church' onto itself, united in belief but otherwise very much a local, distinct ecclesial entity.

What it - Vatican II was - is the point in modern history when the Catholic Communion (particularly its Western component) formally acknowledged itself to be a Communion of Churches - a premise that was previously held forth only by the Eastern and Oriental hierarchs. It was the recognition that there was not a single, all-encompassing, Latin ecclesia to which were appended multiple culturally and linguistically different bodies, most memorable for being pastorally served by clergy in funny hats and typically referred to by Latins as being 'like Orthodox, but Catholic', if they were even aware of our existence.


I recognized that your comparison was not to the era of slavery and that the other events to which I made reference were of a magnitude significantly more egregious than the circumstances to which you made comparison. However, I am unconvinced that a casual reader will make that distinction. Yet, even were they to do so, the comparison doesn't hold up. Having lived through and experienced the Civil Rights Era firsthand, I can say without the slightest compunction that my comments stand - there is no valid comparison. Our ancestors were not denied access to basic physical services and comforts of day to day life, were not physically endangered, and did not live in fear of lynching.

Without question, being regularly interdicted from the exercise of their historic religious heritage and praxis constituted a blatant disregard for their spiritual rights, but the practical effects of the same can't be compared. Were we talking of being barred, physically, from any exercise of sacramental life, as has been (and sometimes is still) done to us and those of other Faiths by civil and military authorities - or as was done by both Catholics and Orthodox to one another in various times and places, under guise or color of religion, it would be a different story - but that is not the case at hand. That's the point I sought to convey.

Many years,

Neil

Deacon Tony,

Actually, there is. 'Church' and 'Rite' were (and still are) occasionally used interchangeably in this and other documents, both those published over papal signature and those emanating from various of the dicastries.


I'm not sure whether your comment is intended to suggest that my first paragraph above is correct or the second. If the latter (which I suspect from one of your subsequent comments), I would absolutely disagree for reasons on which I elaborate below.


No one is suggesting that Eastern, Western, or any other of the descriptors are or should be placed above or in contrast to Catholic. Rather, the styling of Melkite, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, etc., emphasizes the distinct identity of each such Church within the larger spectrum of Catholicism as a Communion of Churches - hallmarks that uniquely mark its universality.

Note that I did not suggest that one should speak of a 'Melkite Church' or a 'Byzantine Church' - but of the 'Melkite Catholic Church' or 'the Byzantine Catholic Church'.

Yes, with the American proclivity to use, in common parlance, the briefest terminology that might be understood, one will hear the former usages, but that is an accident of speech, not an attempt to distance from Catholicism. (In truth, however, certain of the Eastern and Oriental Churches can be readily understood as 'Catholic' without employing the term in naming - because there is no identically named counterpart ecclesia - true of both mine and yours, as well as the Maronite, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, and Italo-Greico-Albanian Churches).


And no one has suggested otherwise.


No they cannot be used legitimately. The definition of Rite has been established in the CCEO, in one of the few Canons which I've never yet heard decried as being at odds with our traditions, heritage, or spirituality.


It can be improved upon, ...


but the definition as set forth in the Canon is inherently accurate as stated. Distinctions beyond that of Rite, those of Tradition, Recension, and Usage, effectively delineate the particularities of praxis that exist within the 22 Churches. We waited long enough and fought hard enough to have the distinction made between Rite and Church


- let's not muddy those waters.


Yes, a very valid point that I failed to make. We were, at times, our own worst enemies, desparate to distance ourselves from being perceived as 'foreigners' and to prove ourselves as being 'real Catholics' or 'as Catholic as the next guy'. The former role we took on as our own contribution to Americanism; the latter was, in some instances, baggage from the days when our nascent Churches - recently returned from Orthodoxy - were beset by Latin missionaries doggedly determined to make us as 'Catholic' as themselves. The irony is that, in resuurecting that notion here in North America, the impetus arose for a return to Orthodoxy of large numbers of our peoples.

Many years,

Neil

You may be correct but without specific instances given I could not say. I have not read ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM through for some time so if there are specific instances in it where rite and church seem to be confused I'd be surprised, since this decree was intending to articulate the proper ecclesiology, but it may be otherwise.

In particular, however, I was commenting only on the heading as stated: "CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE". What's wrong with that?

Neil, thanks for your comments.

To follow up on and with specifics of the other parts of your post would require more time than I fear I have at the present. In general, some of my comments were directed to the original post and not directly to what you posted. The definition of "Rite" given by the Canon is fine in general but it, as is the use of the word "Church" as in the other quoted Canon, are given a meaning specific to the use in the Code. So "Church" in the sui iuris and other possible uses in the Canons my not necessarily designate the fundamental uses in theology, and it is theology that informs Canon Law, and Canon Law that is applied theology. Waters are muddied when Metropolitan and Patriarchal etc. designations are elevated to a fundamental and necessary aspect of ecclesiology that they are not.

Regarding the definition of "Rite" and the further quoted clarification (BTW where is that quote from?) I read it as much less restrictive than I had recalled and if anything supports a less-specific, less-restrictive more general usage. As I read the words, what I term a recension could be called a rite.

Also, is it that it's ok to "be collectively termed Eastern Catholics or Eastern (and Oriental) Rite Catholics" but that the designations "'Melkite Rite Catholics'...'Ukrainian Rite Catholics'... 'Ruthenian Rite Catholics'" are not correct? I'm all for precision in terminology but that distinction to me would be splitting things too fine.

Bottom line for me is that I think the concept of church has now achieved its proper importance and distinction but is sometimes given a wrong meaning; at the same time the term rite has been given a politically-incorrect-type status that has restricted is proper use, and to the ridiculous stance of some (not you) where it is even totally rejected.

We're making too much of this. Orthogonal definitions are possible, within this taxonomy:

Church--actually a communion of particular Churches, such as the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, consisting of:

Particular Churches--autonomous or autocephalous Churches with their own independent hierarchy, under the jurisdiction of a Patriarch, Metropolitan or Archbishop, each of which follows a:

Rite, a specific liturgical, spiritual, theological, doctrinal and disciplinary patrimony or Tradition, in which one might find variations called:

Proper usage, or minor variations in the form of worship, including but not limited to differences in rubrics (e.g., the full church processions of the Greek usage vs. the procession along the solea in the Slavic usage); texts (the number and nature of antiphons, litanies, etc.) or the order of services.

The term "rite" also has a technical definition that refers exclusively to a particular liturgical ordo or services within a particular Church. Thus, e.g., the Old Roman rite, the Tridentine rite, etc.

As Byzantine Catholics, we therefore would be members of the Catholic Communion, as well as of a particular Church (Ruthenian, Melkite, Ukrainian, etc.), which follows a particular rite (Byzantine or Constantinopolitan), according to the usage appropriate to our particular Church (Ruthenian, Melkite, Russian, Romanian, etc.).

Since one can only belong to a Church, and not to a rite, it is proper to refer to us as members of the Greek or Byzantine Catholic Churches, or to a specific Church, such as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, etc.

As far as the term "Eastern rite" goes, since there is no such animal, it is not a proper mode of expression. Calling the Byzantine Catholic Churches the "Eastern rite" of the Catholic Church ignores the existence of other non-Byzantine rites, but also implies that we are merely ritual adjuncts of the Latin Church, which is not the case.

Stuart,

Actually, there is a distinction to be drawn here between East and West.



No one is suggesting (I don't think) that the terminology 'Eastern Rite' be used in the phrasing 'Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church'. Were anyone to do so, I would have the same reaction as you to the usage. On the other hand, one can speak (though it's not my favorite phrasing) of 'Eastern Rite Catholic Churches' - denoting those which serve according to the Byzantine or Constantinoplian Rite, making the same distinction as our Orthodox brethren do, between Eastern and Oriental. (A distinction whose usefulness is, admittedly, pretty much limited to the rarified circles in which ecclesiastical English is the lingua franca, as 'Eastern' and 'Oriental' are synonymous in virtually all other tongues.)

Many years,

Neil

Deacon Tony,

The quote is mine. Some 6 to 8 years ago, we had several requests here for a detailed explanation of the differences between Churches and Rites and a further delineation of distinctions between and among the Churches which served according to the various Rites. In response, I drafted a narrative piece and accompanied it with a taxonomy of the type to which Stuart refers, as well as a schematic presentation of the Churches within that taxonomy.

The entire document can be read at this forum link which I had posted for the OP's consideration - although, as I noted in providing the link, there are coding issues from the 8th or so post (which is where the schematic begins) that need fixing.

The taxonomy which I employed (below the level of Rite) was a mix of what has traditionally been applied and my own thoughts on the matter. It was, in part, reflective of the breakout that became evident as I developed the accompanying schematic.


Below that level, the division is to Churches and further distinctions are ordinarily confined to those found within a particular Church.


There are a couple of yet narrower distinctions drawn so as to allow attention to be drawn to certain unique circumstances, but that's the gist of it.



But, there isn't a Ukrainian Rite. The UGCC is of the Slav Tradition of the Byzantine Rite and, as you know, it serves according to the Little Russian or Ruthenian Rescension, as do your Church and the Bulgarian, Croatian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Slovak Churches.

Many years,

Neil

One of the complicating factors is that for a whole swathe of reasons it is considered incorrect to speak of the "Ambrosian Church" for example, though clearly the antecedents of such things were considered churches at least at some point ("the Gallican Church" is trotted around).

All of them are members of the Latin Church, which employs several rites (in the narrow technical sense of a liturgical ordo). All of them follow the Latin or Western rite (the latter might be a better term).

The taxonomies are well informed but not universal in acceptance or agreed upon proper usage. What I'm saying is that there is and probably always will be some variation in the legitimate application of even accepted definitions of such terms as rite or liturgical tradition or recension, but not in the term church/churches. Get the fundamental usage of church/churches correct and some latitude in the accompanying terms is not of great consequence. There is not a fundamental theological underpinning in the term rite, for instance, while there very much is so one for church/churches.

I thought (at the least) that the Romanians used the volgata or derivative thereof. Again, a nice ordering of terminology but there are others.

Consider for instance the usage in: So there is a "Latin or Western rite." Yet we are also informed that: