Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s polemical no matter who is doing it.

That was page 1. Or is it only plemical when it isn’t a Catholic doing it?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What did Nicea say that was untrue? They are Eastern rites within the Catholic Church. What did he say that indicates he has a poor catechesis? I’m lost?

It seems you have a very poor understanding of Catholic ecclesiology. Methinks you need to spend more time learning about your Church…maybe spend some time on the Eastern Catholicism forum. It would be a shame for an Orthodox to have to explain to a Catholic what their own Church teaches.

 

[Hesychios]

… please, cut the snark and provide a straight answer. I wasn’t being flip before – this is genuinely how it seems to outsiders.

What answer are you looking for?

The canonical Orthodox are in communion with each other, as in the early church. Denominationalism is just as insulting to Orthodox as it is to Papal Catholics, I have already explained why in post 80. You seem to have an agenda to misrepresent Holy Orthodoxy.

As far as the nationalism of churches goes, we Catholics and Orthodox are almost mirror images of each other. Both have violated the ancient canons and installed bishops with overlapping jurisdictions, the only difference is that the Roman Catholic church has forms of organization (with overlapping jurisdictions) the Orthodox are not familiar with, since they do not predate the great schism between us. But your church has it’s own examples of national churches just like the Orthodox do too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe this sounds like a weird question, Michael, but I’m just curious why you call Catholics “papal Catholics?”

Also, which national churches are you referring to?

Blessings as always brother, I haven’t talked to you in so long! IM me one of these days and let me know how you’re doing!! Is your wife back stateside, did you get a job? etc.!

Blessings!!

What answer are you looking for?

The canonical Orthodox are in communion with each other, as in the early church. Denominationalism is just as insulting to Orthodox as it is to Papal Catholics, I have already explained why in post 80. You seem to have an agenda to misrepresent Holy Orthodoxy.

As far as the nationalism of churches goes, we Catholics and Orthodox are almost mirror images of each other. Both have violated the ancient canons and installed bishops with overlapping jurisdictions, the only difference is that the Roman Catholic church has forms of organization (with overlapping jurisdictions) the Orthodox are not familiar with, since they do not predate the great schism between us. But your church has it’s own examples of national churches just like the Orthodox do too.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

What did Nicea say that was untrue? They are Eastern rites within the Catholic Church. What did he say that indicates he has a poor catechesis? I’m lost?

Perhaps he meant that, more correctly, the Ukrainian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Maronites, etc., are termed “churches” (sui iuris churches), while “rite” refers to liturgical tradition, such as Byzantine, Roman, etc.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Scott,

What did Nicea say that was untrue? They are Eastern rites within the Catholic Church. What did he say that indicates he has a poor catechesis? I’m lost?

They are Sui Iuris particular churches.

Each is supposed to be of equal dignity, the term ‘rites’ is passe’ and incorrect since the old view of subordinate ‘rites’ has been rejected. They are full churches, which any eastern Catholic would be happy to explain to you.

For more information you may consult the CCEO, promulgated by His Holiness John Paul II, and the CNEWA website has loads of good info on them.

 

[josephdaniel29]

What did Nicea say that was untrue? They are Eastern rites within the Catholic Church. What did he say that indicates he has a poor catechesis? I’m lost?

Rites refer to liturgical practices. There is for instance a Byzantine “rite” and Syriac “rite” and Roman “rite.” There are various Catholic Churches that use those rites. For example the Melkite Church uses the Byzantine rite and the Syriac Catholic Church uses the Syriac rite. Their counterparts in the Orthodox Churches use the same rites, the Eastern Orthodox use the Byzantine and the Oriental Orthodox use some variation of the Syriac rite.

The practice of referring to the various Eastern Catholic Churches as “rites” is very offensive to Eastern Catholics. It hearkens back to a time when their traditional prerogatives were being trampled on by the much larger Latin Church. Take a look at the history of Eastern Catholicism here in the States to see what I mean.

In short Nicea is wrong because they are not rites, but rather individual, self-governing Churches with their own head who are in communion with each other and with the Church of Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

Maybe this sounds like a weird question, Michael, but I’m just curious why you call Catholics “papal Catholics?”

It’s the only respectful way I can think of to distinguish Catholics who support the Papacy from Orthodox Catholics.

Roman Catholic is usually thought to mean Latin Catholic, and some take offense to it besides. Although in truth, my mother told me I was a Roman Catholic, and so did the nuns, so I never got all hung up over it, even after fifty years.

---

I’m OK, I miss my wife, she’s still in China. I talk to her every day and sometimes twice in a day.

Skype helps.

Thank God my health is good.

Thanks for asking,
Michael your brother

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What is offensive about there being different liturgical traditions in the Catholic Church? I would think it shows the comprehensiveness and catholicity of the Church to permit different traditions to continue under the broader umbrella of the Roman See. I am admittedly NO expert on this. Growing up in Central California where it’s all Catholic or Protestant with the nearest Orthodox Church an hour away in Fresno, I’ve never even met a Melkite or Byzantine Rite Catholic. But I don’t see the problem. The pope is allowing an ordinariate for the Anglicans to continue much of their rich tradition under the banner of Rome. He is permitted married clergy to stay that way and use a modified prayer book, the same everything with modifications. It seems charitable and mature? I don’t see how these could be considered denominations in that they don’t hold beliefs different from Catholicism that contradict it. They affirm the papacy and its leadership and nature. They are obedient to Catholic morality and catechesis. They are not in schism nor they deviate from the larger Church to which they belong.

On one hand you define rites as “liturgical practices.” Then at the end you say the Byzantine Rite and other Eastern Catholic churches under the banner of Rome are not rites because they are self-governing. That is confusing to say the least. If they are based on a unique liturgical practice, they’re rites by your definition and how self-governing they are is irrelevent. They aren’t really self-governing since they are under the governance of Rome ultimately just as my Roman Catholic diocese here ultimately answers to Rome?

Rites refer to liturgical practices. There is for instance a Byzantine “rite” and Syriac “rite” and Roman “rite.” There are various Catholic Churches that use those rites. For example the Melkite Church uses the Byzantine rite and the Syriac Catholic Church uses the Syriac rite. Their counterparts in the Orthodox Churches use the same rites, the Eastern Orthodox use the Byzantine and the Oriental Orthodox use some variation of the Syriac rite.

The practice of referring to the various Eastern Catholic Churches as “rites” is very offensive to Eastern Catholics. It hearkens back to a time when their traditional prerogatives were being trampled on by the much larger Latin Church. Take a look at the history of Eastern Catholicism here in the States to see what I mean.

In short Nicea is wrong because they are not rites, but rather individual, self-governing Churches with their own head who are in communion with each other and with the Church of Rome.

 

[dzheremi]

I think the point is that “rites” refer to the liturgical practices of the various churches, not the churches themselves. It’s not really a matter of offense; just distinguishing churches from the rites they use. The Melkite Church uses the Byzantine rite, the Maronite Church uses a particular variation of the Syriac rite, etc. They’re referring to different things.

 

[Hesychios]

I think the point is that “rites” refer to the liturgical practices of the various churches, not the churches themselves. It’s not really a matter of offense; just distinguishing churches from the rites they use. The Melkite Church uses the Byzantine rite, the Maronite Church uses a particular variation of the Syriac rite, etc. They’re referring to different things.

The terminology also hearkens back to an old ‘colonial’ mentality when the eastern Catholics were thought to be tolerated subordinate groups. ‘Praestanti Ritus Latini’ was the order of the day. The church is trying to get away from that past, but people still use the term and think the thoughts.

Easterrn Catholics can speak to this for themselves in the EC section of CAF or at Byzcath.org. It doesn’t do any good for Orthodox to say much on the subject when there are Catholics who can and should explain it.

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed. My apologies to any Eastern Catholics here. I’m not trying to speak for anybody else.

 

[josephdaniel29]

What is offensive about there being different liturgical traditions in the Catholic Church? I would think it shows the comprehensiveness and catholicity of the Church to permit different traditions to continue under the broader umbrella of the Roman See. I am admittedly NO expert on this. Growing up in Central California where it’s all Catholic or Protestant with the nearest Orthodox Church an hour away in Fresno, I’ve never even met a Melkite or Byzantine Rite Catholic. But I don’t see the problem. The pope is allowing an ordinariate for the Anglicans to continue much of their rich tradition under the banner of Rome. He is permitted married clergy to stay that way and use a modified prayer book, the same everything with modifications. It seems charitable and mature? I don’t see how these could be considered denominations in that they don’t hold beliefs different from Catholicism that contradict it. They affirm the papacy and its leadership and nature. They are obedient to Catholic morality and catechesis. They are not in schism nor they deviate from the larger Church to which they belong.

On one hand you define rites as “liturgical practices.” Then at the end you say the Byzantine Rite and other Eastern Catholic churches under the banner of Rome are not rites because they are self-governing. That is confusing to say the least. If they are based on a unique liturgical practice, they’re rites by your definition and how self-governing they are is irrelevent. They aren’t really self-governing since they are under the governance of Rome ultimately just as my Roman Catholic diocese here ultimately answers to Rome?

Gurney the “Byzantine Rite” is not a Church. A rite is a set of liturgical practices used by various Churches. For example, the Latin* Church* uses the Ordinary and Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite and even an Anglican Rite. Catholic Churches other than the Latin Church use other rites. For example, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church uses the Byzantine Rite and the Syriac Catholic Church and Maronite Catholic Church use the Syriac Rite.

Referring to the various Eastern Catholic Churches as “rites” can be offensive for the same reason referring to an African American as “boy” can be. The individual in question may in fact be a boy but because the way the term has been used in the past is has very negative connotations.

There was a time in the not to distant past that the Latin Church saw the Eastern Catholics Churches as inferior to the Latin Church. Just look at the example of Pope Pius IX having his papal guards hold the Melkite Patriarch Gregory down while he placed his foot on the Patriarch’s head. Calling them “rites” brings up bad historical memories and denies them the dignity of being a true Church equal to the Latin Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just out of curiosity, what terminology would you like them to use? I think it boils down to perspective. Orthodox are going to think it’s a colonial mindset with Catholics “tolerating” the Eastern rites when from the Catholic perspective it shows that the Catholic Church is not a pushy, nasty dictatorship in that they do allow different rites. The Church doesn’t claim the Eastern rites are inferior or pretender liturgies. Rather, they extend flexibility and diversity. That seems to go against the perception people try to put out there that the Church is rigid, legalistic, unbending, unyielding, and monolithic. It seems like they’re trying to be diverse in liturgy and respectful but just united and singular in morality, theology, and pastoral leadership. I don’t see it as a colonial thumbing the nose.

East and West have skeletons in the closet. I just wonder if it’s productive to constantly hearken back to said skeletons. The Massacre of the Latins wasn’t the greatest moment in Orthodox history either but it’s not really relevent to relations between East and West. Both sides intrigued against each other and persecuted each other’s parishes that were on their borders or under their auspices. They both have bad memories to rehash. I just wonder how productive or valuable that is…

The terminology also hearkens back to an old ‘colonial’ mentality when the eastern Catholics were thought to be tolerated subordinate groups. ‘Praestanti Ritus Latini’ was the order of the day. The church is trying to get away from that past, but people still use the term and think the thoughts.

Easterrn Catholics can speak to this for themselves in the EC section of CAF or at Byzcath.org. It doesn’t do any good for Orthodox to say much on the subject when there are Catholics who can and should explain it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There’s no need to apologize, Jeremy. You have one foot in Egypt already! You practically are Orthodox. I’m sure no Orthodox are offended LOL…

Indeed. My apologies to any Eastern Catholics here. I’m not trying to speak for anybody else.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

With reference to “rites” and “Churches”, I recall when the UGCC decided to move their seat to Kyiv. For some reason, the Moscow Patriarchate was offended with that decision, and someone asked Cardinal Husar, the leader of the UGCC, whether Rome approved the move to Kyiv. Obviously, the interviewer was well aware that Rome was eager to please Moscow, and didn’t understand how could Rome allow the UGCC to move its seat to Kyiv, against the vehement protests of Moscow.

Cardinal Husar replied, “We didn’t ask Rome. We govern ourselves, and we decided on our own.” So, I kind of see that there’s more to a sui juris Church than simply using a separate rite of worship.

Maybe my example wasn’t the best in the sense that the UGCC, which uses the Byzantine rite of worship, did not have a Patriarch. But even though Cardinal Ljubomyr Husar was not called a Patriarch, we saw the independent governance of the UGCC in action in that case.

 

[dzheremi]

And that’s good to see. I’d hate for Ukrainians to have to kowtow to Russia for the sake of Rome, or anybody.

Regarding “rite” v. other words: I just checked my copy of Attwater’s fantastic “Eastern Catholic Worship” (1945), which is a collection of translations of the various liturgies of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches, with a translation of the Latin Mass at the end for comparative purposes (which just makes me sad, having gone to so many irreverent O.F. “masses”…). Each translation is introduced with a brief explanation of the history of the church(es) the particular liturgy belongs to. I find that a little curious, in the context of this discussion. Did “rite” fall out of fashion at some point and then come back? Why is “rite” used at all to refer to these particular liturgies when Latin already has a perfectly good translation of the word that is apparently more proper to use, “liturgia”? Are we having this conversation for no reason?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

What answer are you looking for?

The canonical Orthodox are in communion with each other, as in the early church. Denominationalism is just as insulting to Orthodox as it is to Papal Catholics, I have already explained why in post 80. You seem to have an agenda to misrepresent Holy Orthodoxy.

As a Roman Catholic, I agree with you, Hesychios. I do think the communion of churches united with each other as the Orthodox Church is indeed structurally comparable to the union of 23 churches that together make up the Catholic Church.

What did Nicea say that was untrue? They are Eastern rites within the Catholic Church. What did he say that indicates he has a poor catechesis? I’m lost?

A rite is a particular tradition of how to celebrate the Sacraments, especially the Liturgy. There are way fewer than 23 of them in the Catholic Church today.

The term he should have used above was churches - there are 22 eastern Catholic churches. Here is a breakdown of some basic terminology:

particular church - any group of Christians united under a valid ordinary

sui iuris churches - “sui iuris” churches are self-governing churches. For instance, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has a patriarch - one of the patriarchs of Antioch - as well as their own synods, bishops, etc. There are 22 of these sui iuris churches that are in full communion with each other and with the Latin Church.

ritual church - the church or group of churches who share the same rite

And, of course, the Catholic Church, comprised of all the sui iuris churches of the world that are in communion with the pope - i.e. those 22 eastern churches mentioned above and the Latin Church. The Catholic claim is that, to paraphrase Vatican II, in this Catholic Church as a whole the body of Christ on earth subsists.

As dzheremi said, it’s just a matter of proper terminology. The Melkites are not a “rite.” They are a self-governing church in communion with the Latin Church. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church uses the Byzantine Rite.

Gurney the “Byzantine Rite” is not a Church. A rite is a set of liturgical practices used by various Churches. For example, the Latin* Church* uses the Ordinary and Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite and even an Anglican Rite. Catholic Churches other than the Latin Church use other rites. For example, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church uses the Byzantine Rite and the Syriac Catholic Church and Maronite Catholic Church use the Syriac Rite.

Referring to the various Eastern Catholic Churches as “rites” can be offensive for the same reason referring to an African American as “boy” can be. The individual in question may in fact be a boy but because the way the term has been used in the past is has very negative connotations.

There was a time in the not to distant past that the Latin Church saw the Eastern Catholics Churches as inferior to the Latin Church. Just look at the example of Pope Pius IX having his papal guards hold the Melkite Patriarch Gregory down while he placed his foot on the Patriarch’s head. Calling them “rites” brings up bad historical memories and denies them the dignity of being a true Church equal to the Latin Church.

Great explanation, josephdaniel.

One small correction, though: the Anglican adaptation you mention is considered part of the Roman Rite as well, just as the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form are.

Just out of curiosity, what terminology would you like them to use? I think it boils down to perspective. Orthodox are going to think it’s a colonial mindset with Catholics “tolerating” the Eastern rites when from the Catholic perspective it shows that the Catholic Church is not a pushy, nasty dictatorship in that they do allow different rites. The Church doesn’t claim the Eastern rites are inferior or pretender liturgies. Rather, they extend flexibility and diversity. That seems to go against the perception people try to put out there that the Church is rigid, legalistic, unbending, unyielding, and monolithic. It seems like they’re trying to be diverse in liturgy and respectful but just united and singular in morality, theology, and pastoral leadership. I don’t see it as a colonial thumbing the nose.

I agree, but we still have to get our terminology correct. For instance, the Melkite Catholic Church, Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek Byzantine Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church: these are separate entities on the list of the 23 Catholic churches, but they are not rites: all the Catholic churches I just listed use the same rite, the Byzantine Rite.

While describing these churches as “rites” is essentially politically incorrect in the Catholic world today, the bigger problem is that it actually is inaccurate: there are about six or seven eastern rites in the Catholic Church (I forget how many exactly; that’s an estimate from memory), not 23. It’s a qualitative difference.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Rites, churches, that’s fine. You can call them what they want but they are not “denominations” as some Eastern Orthodox like to call them. They are in communion with Rome and share a common theology, morality, and pastoral leadership is ultimately the Pope. They are not denominations. Denominations are schismatic groups that differ greatly from their original host from which they came. They are breakaway groups that have a hostile tension of theology or morality or some issue with one another. They cannot be compared to the “churches” (notice I didn’t call them rites! ) of the Catholic Church. That’s my point.

As a Roman Catholic, I agree with you, Hesychios. I do think the communion of churches united with each other as the Orthodox Church is indeed structurally comparable to the union of 23 churches that together make up the Catholic Church.

A rite is a particular tradition of how to celebrate the Sacraments, especially the Liturgy. There are way fewer than 23 of them in the Catholic Church today.

The term he should have used above was churches - there are 22 eastern Catholic churches. Here is a breakdown of some basic terminology:

particular church - any group of Christians united under a valid ordinary

sui iuris churches - “sui iuris” churches are self-governing churches. For instance, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has a patriarch - one of the patriarchs of Antioch - as well as their own synods, bishops, etc. There are 22 of these sui iuris churches that are in full communion with each other and with the Latin Church.

ritual church - the church or group of churches who share the same rite

And, of course, the Catholic Church, comprised of all the sui iuris churches of the world that are in communion with the pope - i.e. those 22 eastern churches mentioned above and the Latin Church. The Catholic claim is that, to paraphrase Vatican II, in this Catholic Church as a whole the body of Christ on earth subsists.

As dzheremi said, it’s just a matter of proper terminology. The Melkites are not a “rite.” They are a self-governing church in communion with the Latin Church. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church uses the Byzantine Rite.

Great explanation, josephdaniel.

One small correction, though: the Anglican adaptation you mention is considered part of the Roman Rite as well, just as the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form are.

I agree, but we still have to get our terminology correct. For instance, the Melkite Catholic Church, Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek Byzantine Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church: these are separate entities on the list of the 23 Catholic churches, but they are not rites: all the Catholic churches I just listed use the same rite, the Byzantine Rite.

While describing these churches as “rites” is essentially politically incorrect in the Catholic world today, the bigger problem is that it actually is inaccurate: there are about six or seven eastern rites in the Catholic Church (I forget how many exactly; that’s an estimate from memory), not 23. It’s a qualitative difference.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Indeed. My apologies to any Eastern Catholics here. I’m not trying to speak for anybody else.

I can’t speak fo anybody else here, but I would say “Don’t worry about it.”

I personally have never enocuntered “RC prejudice” against us ECs----but then, I don’t attend RC church, either—I prefer the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” community----maybe if I did, I would eventually (maybe) encounter some of that “prejudice.” Our priest also is an RC priest, if it matters-------so may be that contributes somewhat to our lack of “tension.”

I’ve heard some ECs talk about negative experiences they’ve had within the RC world but personally I’m not too worried about it.

So, again, don’t you worry about it.

I’ve “got your back.”