Different Catholic "rites"?

I could promise you that Brother Ed told me the EO rejected the authority of the pope. Maybe I am wrong. But when I asked about differences a long while back, I thought this was one of them he told me.

God Bless,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure I'll make a mush of this, because I don't fully understand it, but I think "Byzantine" refers to the Rite, and that both Churches in communion with Rome and those not in communion can use the same Rite.

One factoid I think I do remember is that there are 22 Churches in the Catholic Church, using 7 Rites.

I'd actually welcome some clarification on this myself.

 

Seems that no one bothered to read my post.

Oh well.

As I said there, the Eastern Church broke away from the West in 1054, HOWEVER, in the fourteenth century, Orthodox churches in Europe entered back into communion with Rome through the UNION OF BREST and the UNION OF USHUROD. They were allowed to keep their distinctive praxis and liturgical rubrics.

Thus, they are also correctly called "Orthodox Catholics".

Russion Orthodox and others, however, did NOT enter into this union and to this day consider Rome to be the schismatics. There are still about 7 different varieties of EO who do not wish at this time to be in communion with Rome.

 

It's all Neal's fault! He made me not read it!

I'm definitely going to have to read more of this history.

BTW, my 8-yr-old daughter's best friend & family is Byzantine Catholic, and we've traded music CDs, so I've been listening to some Byzantine Chant lately. I don't understand a word, but there's no doubt that it's very old and very sacred!

 

Don't make them so long, then!

Seriously, do you accept and submit to the authority of the pope, the bishop of Rome, Ed?

God Bless,
Neal

 

Sorry it was so long, but it was an important question and one that requires a good answer.

Yes, we do submit to the Holy Father in issues of doctrine and dogma. The reason we can do this is because the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman rite are identical with the exception of a few wordings which do not make a substantive difference.

For example, we do not use the word "transubstantiation" but we believe the exact same thing which it teaches, i.e., that the elements of the Eucharist are truly and substantially the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself and that He is truly and really present upon the altar after the praying of the epeklesis.

This submission has come at a price, and only in the last 20 years has there been a substantial movement to restore the orginal administration of the East to our rite. Most notably, this took place in the area of our right to married priests. The Irish bishops in America, upon seeing the influx of Eastern European married priests, complained (WHINED is more like it) bitterly to the Holy Father back in the 1920's. The result was an edict ordering the Eastern Catholic rite to cease and desist from ordaining married men.

There was considerable and warm discussion over this, with many people urging that this edict be ignored. The metropolitan of that time, after consideration, declared. "We are Catholics. We shall obey." And so it has been until the publication of Lumen Gentium in which JPII urged the Eastern rite to recover their patrimony in America. (In Eastern Europe, the practice was never stopped). There is now a growing insistence that our seminary begin to ordain married men to the priesthood. All we need is a metropolitan with a pair of .....ahhhh, hem, yes....gonads shall we say? Unfortunately, we have suffered from a lot of meddling from the Latin rite bishops and it seems that our bishops are not to eager to stand up to them and tell them to go mind their own business (which from the current state of the Latin rite, one might say they have plenty of their own concerns to pay attention to).

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Thanks for the clarification, Ed.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Hi Brian,

I appreciate your question, which began this thread, as the answer to it will dispel much confusion among Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Even though much of your answer has been answered, I feel that it would be appropriate if I make some clarifications.

MikeS is correct in saying that the term "Roman Catholic" is a Protestant invention (i.e., by Anglican Protestants who wanted to call themselves Anglican Catholics or Protestant Catholics), and since it has become so popular in our day, it is used by many Catholics to refer to "The Catholic Church", and when used, it refers to "The Catholic Church" with its 22 rites, not to the Roman/Latin rite of the Church (e.g. LaRae's usage).

Since it was invented by Protestants and implies that there are other non-Catholic "Catholic" churches (which is false) and because it is confusing to say that there are Byzantine Roman Catholics (I do not know of anyone who uses this combination of qualifiers), "Roman Catholic" isn't the best term, IMHO, to refer to the Church in union with Rome, which should be referred to using its historical single qualifer of "Catholic".

I disagree with Brother Ed that Eastern rite Catholics should refer to themselves as "Orthodox Catholics" or "Orthodox in communion with Rome" because the Church herself, in her documents, refers to the "Orthodox" as those who are in schism with the Catholic Church and those Catholics in the Eastern rites as "Catholics" preceded by the qualifer designating their particular rite (e.g., Byzantine Catholics).

This can be demonstrated by reading the following paragraphs of the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church: 247, 838, 2066, and in the glossary under "Orthodox Churches".

This is also follows the wording and definitions found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. See the submission entitled "Orthodox Church" here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm -

The Orthodox, then, are the Christians in the East of Europe, in Egypt and Asia, who accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (are therefore neither Nestorians nor Monophysites), but who, as the result of the schisms of Photius (ninth cent.) and Cerularius (eleventh cent.), are not in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no common authority obeyed by all, or rather it is only the authority of "Christ and the seven Ecumenical Synods" (from Nicæa I in 325, to Nicæa II in 787).

 

Carson --

You are a good guy and a good brother, but you are dead wrong regarding your statement about the Eastern Catholic churches. We are Orthodox. Our entire praxis is Eastern Orthodox, not Western Latin, and you wouldn't be more than 5 seconds inside our parish and our liturgy before you realized that.

Furthermore, without insult to the Latin rite, we do not wish to be Latin. We were Orthodox in the beginning and we shall remain Orthodox. We are "catholic" in the sense of adhering to all the doctrines and dogma which separate us (West and East) from both Protestants and heretics, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as the UNION OF BREST and THE UNION OF USURHOD goes, they almost destroyed our parishes and our identity. Over the next several centuries, the Orthodox parishes in Europe, and then in America, "latinized" themselves to the point of almost losing their distinctive identity. It was only with the publication of Lumen Gentium, and a serious effort on the part of our bishops (which has not gone far enough or complete enough yet) that such things as iconostasis have been restored in our parishes. The desire to curry favor with the Western rite made generations of Orthodox lose their identity and adapt western customs which are not part of our ethnic identity. (Which is hilarious to hear me say this because I am Irish/Italian ) Nonetheless, and despite my Heinz 47 heritage, I support the ethnic identity of St. Ann's and the Byzantines and will defend to the death their right to claim it and defend it from encrochment.

Brother Ed

 

Hi Brother Ed,

Your response to my last post begs the question. The issue is whether "Orthodox" is a proper name for you as a Catholic who practices in an Eastern rite of the Catholic Church, and your conclusion that you should be called "Orthodox" has a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. Your fallacy - petitio principii - fails to demonstrate the required proposition: "Our entire praxis is Eastern Orthodox".

I contend that your praxis is Eastern, and that the qualifier "Orthodox" is not only unnecessary, but confuses your audience because popularly "Orthodox" refers to those who are in schism with Rome. Your practice is much like a Protestant who insists on calling himself a "Catholic Christian".

You assume that "Orthodox" equates with "Eastern", and if that is true, then the term "Eastern Orthodox" is repetitious. You say that you "were Orthodox in the beginning and we shall remain Orthodox", and that begs the question as well, for you assume "Orthodox" to equate with "Eastern", when "Orthodox" is that name which qualifies those in schism with Rome.

Until you demonstrate that "Orthodox" is a qualifier which is essentially identical with "Eastern", your insistance that you are "Orthodox" is unfounded and confusing since "Orthodox" refers not to those who adhere to Eastern Christian praxis, but rather those who adhere to Eastern Christian praxis and deny the primacy of the Roman See.

 

Brother Ed:

Your parish doesn't seem to call itself Orthodox in communion with Rome. I can't find any reference to "Orthodox" on St. Anne's website or any of the sites they have linked with. Beautiful parish!

God Bless

 

OK, let's be more precise here.

The Eastern Orthodox are those national churches under the patriarchs (except the Roman bishop), such as the Greek and Russian, that preserved the medieval practices of the majority of Christendom in the East.

After Rome added 'filioque' to the creed in violation of an ecumenical council, and did other things that ticked off the rest of Catholicism, finally by 1054 there was no choice but to declare Rome in schism with the Church.

The Eastern Rite churches are those that had been Orthodox but left them to join the schismatics. They are thus no longer Orthodox.

 

I'm curious how you explain that the Eastern Rite churches left their close (doctrinally, geographically and liturgically) Eastern brothers to join the "schismatics" far off in the west.

 

They fell for propaganda?

 

Must've been those flashy 4-color brochures!

 

You know it!