Celebrated at Ruthinian Rite - Eastern Catholic This Weekend

[SirMick]

Hi Folks,

My family and I attended a Byzantine Service at St. Stephens in AZ this weekend and the Liturgy was absolutely incredible. There service was chanted while the Priest celebrated facing East with the entire congregation facing the same direction. The service flowed much more naturally from start to finish and was absolutely artistic in the expression of faith.

When we came home I spoke with my mother, who is old enough to remember the Trindentine Mass, and she said from our description it sounded much the same with the exception of monastic way that the Eastern Rite is celebrated.

I am not saying that it is better than the Novus Ordo Mass we regularly attend, but it changed our view of the Liturgy. The service really brought home the meaning of Lex orandi, lex credendi for us in a way we had not experienced before.

We have never attended a Trindentine Mass, but are going to do so at our earliest convienience as I heard it can have the same impact on the way we view our belief.

I am just sharing our experience, and am in no way insinuating one is better than the other, just that the expression of faith that we experienced there was impactful.

Take care!

 

[KyivAndrew]

Nice to Hear!

 

[Tradycja]

If you have been to a Divine Liturgy already my prediction is that you will not see the Tridentine Mass as the be all and end all.

 

[SirMick]

I suspect that is probably correct. I was very impressed with the Eastern Rite service. My wife and I are discussing registering at St. Stephens and attending there and our normal Parish on a by-weekly basis.

We were very worried about not doing correct things and concious of being respectful of the traditions in as far as participating but the Priest, Deacons, Nuns, and Parishoners were very understanding and gracious to us.

We will definately be returning. I also like the fact that the Children receive Baptism along with the other Sacrements at the same time. We have two that have not had confirmation or first Communion yet and will probably elect to send them to the Catechumen class there. My wife and I are discussing it and we are leaning towards it. The hard part is the sense of loyalty we feel towards our regular parish.

 

[Vico]

I suspect that is probably correct. I was very impressed with the Eastern Rite service. My wife and I are discussing registering at St. Stephens and attending there and our normal Parish on a by-weekly basis.

We were very worried about not doing correct things and concious of being respectful of the traditions in as far as participating but the Priest, Deacons, Nuns, and Parishoners were very understanding and gracious to us.

We will definately be returning. I also like the fact that the Children receive Baptism along with the other Sacrements at the same time. We have two that have not had confirmation or first Communion yet and will probably elect to send them to the Catechumen class there. My wife and I are discussing it and we are leaning towards it. The hard part is the sense of loyalty we feel towards our regular parish.

If you are Latin Catholic, the children are to receive communion (age of discretion) and confirmation (age of discretion to 16) per the prescriptions of the Latin Church, unless of course, you change ritual Church. That is written in the canon laws.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Hi Folks,

My family and I attended a Byzantine Service at St. Stephens in AZ this weekend and the Liturgy was absolutely incredible. There service was chanted while the Priest celebrated facing East with the entire congregation facing the same direction. The service flowed much more naturally from start to finish and was absolutely artistic in the expression of faith.

When we came home I spoke with my mother, who is old enough to remember the Trindentine Mass, and she said from our description it sounded much the same with the exception of monastic way that the Eastern Rite is celebrated.

I am not saying that it is better than the Novus Ordo Mass we regularly attend, but it changed our view of the Liturgy. The service really brought home the meaning of Lex orandi, lex credendi for us in a way we had not experienced before.

We have never attended a Trindentine Mass, but are going to do so at our earliest convienience as I heard it can have the same impact on the way we view our belief.

I am just sharing our experience, and am in no way insinuating one is better than the other, just that the expression of faith that we experienced there was impactful.

Take care!

Do you mean to say that you attended a Divine Liturgy in the “Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church that is in Union w/Rome”, right?

When will Roman Catholics learn to cease using the very derogatory “Rite” terminology when referring to the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that are in Union w/Rome?

U-C

 

[Nowhere_Man]

Do you mean to say that you attended a Divine Liturgy in the “Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church that is in Union w/Rome”, right?

When will Roman Catholics learn to cease using the very derogatory “Rite” terminology when referring to the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that are in Union w/Rome?

U-C

When it becomes mentioned in Latin parishes that there is a difference in meaning; most Roman Catholics don’t even know the Eastern Rites, and by extension sui iuris Churches, exist, let alone the terminology involved.

 

[SirMick]

Hi Ungcsertez,

I had no idea that the term “rite” had anything derogatory attached to it, and certainly did not intend to offend any-one by using the term. And for that, I will offer an apology to anyone who may have been offended. Again, I had no idea that there was anything derogatory attached to it, I simply thought that was the correct terminology.

Yes, we attended the “Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church that is in Union w/Rome”. And we had a wonderful experience there.

Thank you,

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you mean to say that you attended a Divine Liturgy in the “Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church that is in Union w/Rome”, right?

When will Roman Catholics learn to cease using the very derogatory “Rite” terminology when referring to the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that are in Union w/Rome?

U-C

Why is “Rite” derogatory?

Sometimes its just easier to say different Rite than different sui juris Church. Its a bit complicated. There are several sui juris Churches in the Byzantine Rite.

We shouldn’t get caught in the semantics. The OP means well and we shouldn’t take it otherwise.

 

[Vico]

Why is “Rite” derogatory?

Sometimes its just easier to say different Rite than different sui juris Church. Its a bit complicated. There are several sui juris Churches in the Byzantine Rite.

We shouldn’t get caught in the semantics. The OP means well and we shouldn’t take it otherwise.

It does get complex, doesn’t it? Our parish says on the entrance sign: Byzantine Rite. Terminology has changed over the years. It is easy to use ritual Church rather than sui iuris, which one person complained about the Latin when I used it.

The faithful belong to a ritual Church (sui iuris - of its own laws) which lives the faith in the manner of their rite. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people. The rites arise from one of six traditions: Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, Constantinopolitan, and Latin.

 

[Aramis]

Why is “Rite” derogatory?

Sometimes its just easier to say different Rite than different sui juris Church. Its a bit complicated. There are several sui juris Churches in the Byzantine Rite.

We shouldn’t get caught in the semantics. The OP means well and we shouldn’t take it otherwise.

Rite ≠ Church Sui Iuris.

It’s not just a matter of terminology. They are fundamentally different things.

There are 14 Byzantine Rite Churches Sui Iuris. The Ruthenian, Melkites, Russians, Ukrainians, Romanians, Greeks, Italo-Albanians, Georgians*, and 6 more…

There are 2 Alexandrian Rite Churches Sui Iuris: Coptic and Ethiopian.

Only one Rite has only one church Sui Iuris within it… Armenian Rite, which has the Armenian Church Sui Iuris.

Two Churches Sui Iuris have routinely made use of multiple rites: Roman (9+ western rites, and some special circumstances for the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malanka prior to their becoming Churches Sui Iuris) and Ethiopian (Which routinely trains its clerics in Roman and Alexandrian Rite liturgies).

The Roman Rite is used in two Churches Sui Iuris routinely: Roman and Ethiopian.

They are different words with different canonical meanings; prior to Vatican II, they were sloppily used interchangably, but since V II, Rome has been more consistent, and has defined carefully the terms in the CCEO.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Rite ≠ Church Sui Iuris.

It’s not just a matter of terminology. They are fundamentally different things.

There are 14 Byzantine Rite Churches Sui Iuris. The Ruthenian, Melkites, Russians, Ukrainians, Romanians, Greeks, Italo-Albanians, Georgians*, and 6 more…

There are 2 Alexandrian Rite Churches Sui Iuris: Coptic and Ethiopian.

Only one Rite has only one church Sui Iuris within it… Armenian Rite, which has the Armenian Church Sui Iuris.

Two Churches Sui Iuris have routinely made use of multiple rites: Roman (9+ western rites, and some special circumstances for the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malanka prior to their becoming Churches Sui Iuris) and Ethiopian (Which routinely trains its clerics in Roman and Alexandrian Rite liturgies).

The Roman Rite is used in two Churches Sui Iuris routinely: Roman and Ethiopian.

They are different words with different canonical meanings; prior to Vatican II, they were sloppily used interchangably, but since V II, Rome has been more consistent, and has defined carefully the terms in the CCEO.

No, I’m not disagreeing with anything you said. I’m just saying, for some people its easier to say one way or another. Sometimes its just for lack of better knowledge. I’m just saying, the OP is well meaning, lets not be harsh on the OP

 

[Aramis]

No, I’m not disagreeing with anything you said. I’m just saying, for some people its easier to say one way or another. Sometimes its just for lack of better knowledge. I’m just saying, the OP is well meaning, lets not be harsh on the OP

We do need to correct them, preferably gently. The problem is that the term Rite has two meanings…
One, almost always capitalized, refers to a collection of multiple liturgies descending from a major ancient patriarchal see’s patrimony. (Ritus)
The other refers to a specific liturgy’s collection of rubrics and text; literally, the ritual. It’s often uncapitalized, except in titles…

And in older documents, the term Rite was often used for the praxis of a particular Uniate Church, including those absorbed into the Roman Rite but not self-governing: Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc

Church Sui Juiris literally means “self-law church”… a church which has its own law. There are 23, at present.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Hi Ungcsertez,

I had no idea that the term “rite” had anything derogatory attached to it, and certainly did not intend to offend any-one by using the term. And for that, I will offer an apology to anyone who may have been offended. Again, I had no idea that there was anything derogatory attached to it, I simply thought that was the correct terminology.

Yes, we attended the “Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church that is in Union w/Rome”. And we had a wonderful experience there.

Thank you,

Much better, djakuju krasna!

 

[Aramis]

Much better, djakuju krasna!

No, it’s not. It’s backwards. The Particular Church is of the Ruthenian Recension, not the recension being part of the Particular Church. (Tho’ the Ruthenian Metropolia DOES have a couple parishes using other Recensions of the Slavo-Byzantine and Greco-Byzantine traditions…)

 

[Ungcsertez]

No, it’s not. It’s backwards. The Particular Church is of the Ruthenian Recension, not the recension being part of the Particular Church. (Tho’ the Ruthenian Metropolia DOES have a couple parishes using other Recensions of the Slavo-Byzantine and Greco-Byzantine traditions…)

Do you mean those Hungarian and Croatian parishes that are under the Ruthenian Metropolia? Wouldn’t they be referred to as the Hungarian sub- Recension and the Croatian sub-Recension of the Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church?

U-C

 

[Aramis]

Do you mean those Hungarian and Croatian parishes that are under the Ruthenian Metropolia? Wouldn’t they be referred to as the Hungarian sub- Recension and the Croatian sub-Recension of the Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church?

U-C

No. The Contantinopolitan Particular Church is the Church headed by the bishop of Constantinople.

 

[Aramis]

Do you mean those Hungarian and Croatian parishes that are under the Ruthenian Metropolia? Wouldn’t they be referred to as the Hungarian sub- Recension and the Croatian sub-Recension of the Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church?

U-C

Nope. Both of those are slavo-byzantine Tradition of the Constantinopolitan Rite, not the Constantinopolitan Particular Church. They are not subject to the Bishop of Constantinople, so they are not of his particular church.

I was actually thinking of the Italo-albanian parish, which is of the Greco-Byzantine Tradition.

 

[Vico]

When Rome was asked by the various Eastern Catholic Churches to work on liturgical recensions, they produced a set of de-latinized versions. One interesting fact about that is there were two recensions for the Slavic cultures that had evolved differently:

A. 1941 Recensio Vulgata (pro Russis, Bulgaris, Serbis) –
Croats (Serbs), Belorussians, Bulgarians, Russians, Ukrainians outside Ruthenian tradition

B. 1941 Recension Ruthena (pro Ucrainis et Ruthenis) –
Byzantine Galicia and Subcarpathia prior to Union of Brest, 14th century Divine Liturgy of Metropolitan Izydor or Kiev (1436-1458)

So one can readily see that these recensions can be used by various ritual Churches. There is more to the definition of a ritual Church than the liturgy they use.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Nope. Both of those are slavo-byzantine Tradition of the Constantinopolitan Rite, not the Constantinopolitan Particular Church. They are not subject to the Bishop of Constantinople, so they are not of his particular church.

I was actually thinking of the Italo-albanian parish, which is of the Greco-Byzantine Tradition.

They are liturgically linked to the Constantinopolitan Particular Church by history. The Ruthenian Recension is derived from the South West Rus’ Recension of the Church of Constantinople from the time of the mission of SS. Cyrill and Methodius (starting c. 860’s A.D.) and later by their disciples’ mission to Kyivan-Rus’ in the 980’s A.D. These missions came from the Constantinopolitan Church. So they are a Recension, liturgically,
of the Constantinopolitan Church tradition.

U-C