Different Catholic "rites"?

Hi Brian,

Here's a link where you can read all the Catholic rites in FULL communion with Rome:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Catholic is the Church (Catholic meaning Universal)...the One Holy Apostolic Church....Roman or Latin is one of the rites of the Catholic Church. I am a Roman (Latin) Rite Catholic.

There are some groups who claim to be Catholic however they are NOT in communion with Rome.


LaRae

 

Hi Brian,

Here's a link where you can read all the Catholic rites in FULL communion with Rome:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Catholic is the Church (Catholic meaning Universal)...the One Holy Apostolic Church....Roman or Latin is one of the rites of the Catholic Church. I am a Roman (Latin) Rite Catholic.

There are some groups who claim to be Catholic however they are NOT in communion with Rome.


LaRae </font>[/QUOTE]PS did you read the updated info I posted about the Inquisition on that one thread?

 

"What exactly does "in communion with Rome" mean? That they recognize and accept Papal authority?"

Yes, to be in communion is to be one. They are all part of the same Church. The Catechism would be for all the Catholic rites.


God Bless

 

Yes in communion with Rome means they assent to Church teachings and affirm them.

I think that link might mention this too, can't remember.

LaRae

 

Hi Brian --

Thanks for the good question. It is nice to have people desire to understand.

When the apostles dispersed from Jerusalem and began to establish parishes throughout the Roman empire, the Euopean continent was divided along two lines. The Western part of the Roman empire was Latin speaking and the Eastern part was Greek speaking. There were two distinctive cultures and two distinctive philosophies with those cultures.

As the Church grew, Rome became recognized as the headquarters of the Church because of the presence of St. Peter in that city. Writings of the Early Fathers allude to St. Peter being present with St. Paul in Rome.

Sometime after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century, paganism was beginning to infiltrate the Church and attempt to make inroads. Constantine responded to this concern by moving the headquarters of the Church to a sleepy little town on the Baltic Sea by the name of Byzantium. He had a massive building project done to make it fit for his rulership there and renamed it, of course, Constantinople. For a number of years, Constantinople was the headquarters of the Church. Later on, however, the Church moved back to Rome. During this time, however, Constantinople grew in prominence by the fact of the Church's headquarters being there.

As the Church grew, the cultural differences between East and West gave rise to differences in the ADMINISTRATION of these two rites. While the doctrines remained the same between the two (for instance, there was no difference in thought between the two regarding the substance of the Eucharist or the necessity of infant baptism), the praxis of these two differed. In addition, the West began to develope philosophically along the lines of explaining the salvation of mankind in accord with the justice of God, while the East developed a soteriology which dealt with man's union with God. Thus, out of the West came the many writings which deal with God's justice in dealing with mankind, while out of the East came the first monastaries, in which men would remove themselves from the world around them to concentrate upon closer and more intimate union with God.

Of course, you are aware that as growth continued, there began to be numerous administrative problems excerbated by the fact that rapid communications was not a possibliity. The greatest problem of the Church, and possibly the one which did the most damage, especially to the relations between East and West, was the Fall of Rome and the subseqent takeover by the Roman Church of the governance of the population. When Rome fell, the stability of the people fell with it. People naturally looked to the only other force of stability in their lives, which was the Church.

In the meantime, missionaries from the Eastern Church in Constantinople had gone to the Eastern European pagans and presented them with the Gospel. St. Methodius and St. Cyril (for whom the Cyrillic alpahbet is named) developed a witten alphabet for the language of the peoples and converted them to Eastern Christianity. From this came the Orthodox Faiths of the East which are the Byzantines and the Russian Orthodox, using the Slavic languages and Old Church Russian in their liturgy. They are distinctly Eastern in their practice.

South of Europe, Apostle Thomas established the Church in India, and today you will find the "Mar Thoma" churches there. There was also a great conversion of Africa, with almost the whole continent being converted in the first few centuries. (How sad they reverted back to paganism).

In the East, several heresies came up, most notably about how the divine nature was expressed in Jesus the Christ. There was a schism between those who accepted the findings of the councils and those who didn't (forgive me, I am a bit hazy here). This schism is in the East and lasts even to this day. Reunion is being sought, and all involved agree that it is a matter of semantics and passion rather than a substantive heresy.

In 1054, the Great Schism took place. It is said that it was over the issue of the "filioque" clause to the Nicene Creed, but there were other issues which ran just as deep. The parishes in the East resented that Rome simply added the filioque clause to the Creed without the force of a council and without resort to discussion with them over this. Combined with other abuses and problems, the boiling point came on Christmas Day in 1054 when the papal legate from Rome interrupted the Divine Liturgy at the beautiful Cathedral Haggia Sophia in Constantinople and slapped a bull of excommunication on the altar. The Eastern legate, Michael Cerelius, responded by excommunicating Rome. Despite several attempts, the most recent at the Council of Florence in the 15th century, the two sides have not been able to come back together yet.

This schism deepened and solidified the rift between the two sides, especially in matters of liturgical norms and philosophy. If you go to any Eastern Orthodox church today, you will see a very old liturgy, some of which was written in the sixth century by St. John Chrysostom. In the West, however, the liturgy has continued to change, the most recent changes being in the destructive changes implimented at Vatican II. Traditional Latin has been done away with for a vernacular service which is more Protestant looking than Catholic looking.

In the 14th century, several of the Orthodox parishes applied to Rome for a reinstatment of their communion with Rome and were granted it under the UNION OF BREST and the UNION OF USHUROD. These Orthodox parishes became reintegrated into the Catholic Church with the Roman rite as head over them, yet they continued to have Eastern liturgical rites. Over the next several centuries, they slowly "latinized" their praxis and lost much of the distinctive which made them Eastern. However, in the last 40 years, a movement has taken place to take out the "latinizations" of these parishes and return to traditional Eastern worship.

My parish is a Byzantine Catholic parish, that is, we are Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome. As such, you will note many distinctives between us and Rome:

1: The presence of an iconostasis (icon screen) between the sanctuary and the altar. You can see what this looks like HERE (See second picture down)

2: Use of a loaf of specially baked bread for the Eucharist. This loaf is cut into pieces and put in the chalice with the Precious Blood. The Body and Blood are taken out with a golden spoon and placed in the mouths of the faithful.

3. Baptism of infants by immersion.

4. Incense used at EVERY liturgy.

5. Communion of infant children (which I argue, is typologically correct to Scripture!!)

6. Use of icons rather than statuary as a contact point with the saints.

7. All hymnody is accapella only. The Early Church would not use musical instruments, considering them "worldly" because they were played to a beat to facilitate dancing and other worldliness.

8. A cantor leads the hymns and chanting of the psalms.

9. The Gospel and Epistle for the day are chanted.

10. In a truly Eastern Catholic parish, there are NO PEWS. We think pews are only good for one thing -- FIREWOOD!!!

11. Sign of the Cross is made differently.

12. Some of our feast days are different because we have some different saints in our praxis than the West does.

13. NO -- I REPEAT -- NO WIMMEN allowed behind the iconostasis, near the altar, or to touch the Euchrist!!! NEVER!!

14. Married priests are permitted.

Although this looks like a lot of things, again remember that these things are all ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY!!! They are differences of culture and development between East and West. For instance, we both believe that the bread and wine become the true and substantial Body and Blood of the Lord. That is DOCTRINE. But we commune our infants, the Latins do not. That is administrative.

Hope that is helpful. The differences in rites are mostly cultural, although I must say that in some instances, the Latins seem to have lost their way lately in some of the changes they have made. I hope they find their way back.

Cordially in Christ through the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

PS It is noteworthy to state that EVERY HERESY the Church had to fight in councils STARTED IN THE EAST! It was ALWAYS up to Rome to defend orthodoxy and to set things straight!!

 

It is mostly cultural differences. If the person prefers the eastern customs and liturgy of the Church then they may prefer the eastern rite. A person could check out each rite available in town and make a decision from there.

God Bless

 

It is mostly cultural differences. If the person prefers the eastern customs and liturgy of the Church then they may prefer the eastern rite. A person could check out each rite available in town and make a decision from there.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Kathy!

Many years ago, I went to an Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy in Chicago, St. Nicolas Bizantine Rite Church, which has no organ in their customs, and only men in a choir, singing some of the most gorgious music you will ever hear! The language is "Old Slovian," which is as "dead" as Latin is today!

The Eucharist is more like a pellet then a circular wafer, which is dipped into the consecrated wine and placed on your tongue with a small silver spoon.

The Rite, complete with the Iconostasis which covers the alter at the time of consecration, covered with wonderful and beautiful icons, exactly as you would see in a Russian/Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church, which is the Rite of St. John Chysostom. The difference is, this church is in union with Rome!

At the time Pius XII has just died, and the church was covered in purple mourning cloth, which is their custom.

The rosary, the station of the cross are not in their traditions and they have a.........(gulp!) MARRIED PRIESTHOOD! (In Europe, that is, but in the USA, they just remain unmarried to avoid scandal.)

And they are as Catholic as you and I, Kathy!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

Yes.

And from your post above yes the Catechism does apply to them. The CCC also has an excellent section discussing rites. The differences are not doctrinal but cultural in general. They are expressions of the faith rather than disagreements with the faith. For instance in America dance has a sexual conotation, therefore dance is not considered a proper part of liturgy in this country. As a cultural element in other countries such as Eastern Europe and Africa however, dance has a different cultural meaning to the people, included in worship. Therefore when those cultures converted there dance may in some cases was allowed as a part of their liturgy as it may be reverent and respectful.

Here is the CCC info.

Liturgical traditions and the catholicity of the Church
1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.

1201 The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition. The history of the blossoming and development of these rites witnesses to a remarkable complementarity. When the Churches lived their respective liturgical traditions in the communion of the faith and the sacraments of the faith, they enriched one another and grew in fidelity to Tradition and to the common mission of the whole Church.[66]

1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church's mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the "deposit of faith,"[67] in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion, in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. The Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures.[68]

1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In "faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."[69]

Liturgy and culture
1204 The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples.[70] In order that the mystery of Christ be "made known to all the nations . . . to bring about the obedience of faith,"[71] it must be proclaimed, celebrated, and lived in all cultures in such a way that they themselves are not abolished by it, but redeemed and fulfilled:[72] It is with and through their own human culture, assumed and transfigured by Christ, that the multitude of God's children has access to the Father, in order to glorify him in the one Spirit.

1205 "In the liturgy, above all that of the sacraments, there is an immutable part, a part that is divinely instituted and of which the Church is the guardian, and parts that can be changed, which the Church has the power and on occasion also the duty to adapt to the cultures of recently evangelized peoples."[73]

1206 "Liturgical diversity can be a source of enrichment, but it can also provoke tensions, mutual misunderstandings, and even schisms. In this matter it is clear that diversity must not damage unity. It must express only fidelity to the common faith, to the sacramental signs that the Church has received from Christ, and to hierarchical communion. Cultural adaptation also requires a conversion of heart and even, where necessary, a breaking with ancestral customs incompatible with the Catholic faith."[74]

IN BRIEF
1207 It is fitting that liturgical celebration tends to express itself in the culture of the people where the Church finds herself, though without being submissive to it. Moreover, the liturgy itself generates cultures and shapes them.

1208 The diverse liturgical traditions or rites, legitimately recognized, manifest the catholicity of the Church, because they signify and communicate the same mystery of Christ.

1209 The criterion that assures unity amid the diversity of liturgical traditions is fidelity to apostolic Tradition, i e., the communion in the faith and the sacraments received from the apostles, a communion that is both signified and guaranteed by apostolic succession.

 

Is there a website(s) that offer the various liturgies in English translation?

 

I hope that everybody realizes that the term "Roman Catholic" is a Protestant invention (from England, I believe), intended to imply that there are other Catholic Churches, as well as to give a foreign taint to the Church. There is actually no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

According to the "Handbook of denominations inthe United States bt Mead there are quite a number of diferent Catholic Churches. The RCC is just one of them.

 

According to the "Handbook of denominations inthe United States bt Mead there are quite a number of diferent Catholic Churches. The RCC is just one of them. </font>[/QUOTE]Nonetheless, there is no Roman Catholic Church. The Church calls itself The Catholic Church.

 

According to the "Handbook of denominations inthe United States bt Mead there are quite a number of diferent Catholic Churches. The RCC is just one of them. </font>[/QUOTE]Then Mead is incorrect in their terminology.

There is only ONE Catholic Church....and there are various 'rites' who are in FULL communion with Rome. They all assent to the teachings of the Church. Go back a page or two and look at the link I posted, it describes the rites.


LaRae

 

Quick question for my understanding. I thought the Eastern Orthodox Church rejected the authority of the pope in Rome. How, then, can they be in "communion" with Rome? Or am I missing something? I could promise that at one time Brother Ed told me that the EO rejected the pope.

Thanks and God Bless!
Neal

 

Where did you read that the Eastern Orthodox Church (wouldn't that more accurately be "Churches"? I'm not really sure) is in full communion with Rome?

 

Isn't Eastern Orthodox another name for the Byzantine rite? Isn't that what Brother Ed is?

In Christ,
Neal

 

Here you go, Mike. I found where I read it. In Brother Ed's post on page one:

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