"Eastern Catholicism" is it Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

[catholic1seeks]

**Quick question: Is “Eastern Catholicism” Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? On this forum, which is titled Eastern Catholicism, I see so many questions on the Eastern Orthodox Church.
**

 

[Rolltide]

**Quick question: Is “Eastern Catholicism” Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? On this forum, which is titled Eastern Catholicism, I see so many questions on the Eastern Orthodox Church.
**

Short answer is that over the years, portions of each of the various Orthodox churches (but not everyone in the church) have reunited with Rome, causing the creation of Eastern Catholic Churches. For each Orthodox Church that is schismatic with Rome, there is an equivalent Eastern Catholic Church that is united with Rome. As far as ritual, custom, and belief, they would be nearly identical to their counterpart, except that one recognizes the authority of the pope, and the other does not.

 

[Aramis]

The snarky answer: Both.

A more reasoned answer: due to the history of most of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches Sui Iuris, there are deep ties to and with the non-Catholic apostolic Eastern Churches, including the Coptic Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox Communion (What most people think of as Orthodoxy), the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church.

The Byzantine Rite is shared by the Eastern Orthodox Communion (including the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Moscow Patriarchate, and their dscendent churches) and by most of the Catholic Eastern Rite Churches… The Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Romanian, Italo-albanian, Slovenian, Melkite, and several others.

The Alexandrian Rite is shared by the Coptic Orthodox and Eritirean Orthodox, and the Coptic Catholics and Etheopian Catholics.

The Armenian Rite is shared by the Armenian Catholics and Armenian Apostolic Orthodox. These two have a treaty in place to provide for sharing of the sacraments by members of both churches in common; there are even deacons who are permitted to function in both (tho’ that’s technically a violation of canon law) due to the very close relationship.

The Syriac Rite is shared by the Syrian Orthodox, the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox, and the Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Syrian, Syro-Malankara, and Maronite Catholic Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

For comparison, the western:
The Latin Rite is used by the Roman Catholics, and by the Eastern Orthodox, in very different recensions; it is also used by the schismatic Old Catholics of the Utrecht Union, the Polish National Catholic Church, and the People’s Patriotic Church of China*. It is also invalidly but earnestly used by the “Anglo-Catholics” within the Anglican/Episcopalian Communion, by the Lutherans, and the Methodists.

Note that the various uses within the Roman Catholic church are also termed Rites, but are Useages: The Bragan, Celtic**, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Gallican**, Anglican***, British**, Dominican, and Carmelite uses all vary from the Latin rite.

• the PPCoC officially isn’t Catholic; many of its clergy are “hidden catholics”, so only some of its use is valid…
  ** no longer licit; not in use
  *** termed a usage, not a rite; it is permitted for congregations with strong anglican ties, usually large numbers of converts, or even whole parishes that converted.

 

[rad]

Note that the various uses within the Roman Catholic church are also termed Rites, but are Useages: The Bragan, Celtic**,

** no longer licit; not in use

It was fascinating to discover that the Celtic rite has a limited use in the modern Russian Orthodox Church - some places are permitted to use the 8th century Lorrha Missal of Ireland. These are a convert monastery in Belgium which is under the Moscow Patriarchate and a monastery and a few parishes in Australia which come under the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).

I have seen the Lorrha Missal on Internet sites and a Google.com search should find it easily.

 

[malphono]

… The Syriac Rite is shared by the Syrian Orthodox, the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox, and the Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Syrian, Syro-Malankara, and Maronite Catholic Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

While the East and West Syriac liturgical traditions do indeed have a common origin, they are very different and are really considered separate rather than “shared.”

Aramis:

Note that the various uses within the Roman Catholic church are also termed Rites, but are Useages: The Bragan, Celtic**, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Gallican**, Anglican***, British**, Dominican, and Carmelite uses all vary from the Latin rite.

I think you missed the Cistercians (O.Cist).

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramis
Note that the various uses within the Roman Catholic church are also termed Rites, but are Useages: The Bragan, Celtic**, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Gallican**, Anglican***, British**, Dominican, and Carmelite uses all vary from the Latin rite.
I think you missed the Cistercians (O.Cist).**

The Mozarabic is definitely NOT a useage or variant of the Latin Rite, but its own rite. Among other things, the canon varies from day to day, as in many of the Gallican rites.

The Ambrosian rite, aside from having its unique structure of the Divine Office, has some peculiarities, such as a variant text of what is basically the Roman Canon. How much of this is local, how much general Italian, and how much Romanized, I do not know.

The Cistercian (both Trappist and Common Observance) and Carthusians follow the Benedictine Office, which differs from the Roman Secular office.

 

[malphono]

**
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramis
Note that the various uses within the Roman Catholic church are also termed Rites, but are Useages: The Bragan, Celtic**, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Gallican**, Anglican***, British**, Dominican, and Carmelite uses all vary from the Latin rite.
I think you missed the Cistercians (O.Cist).**

The Mozarabic is definitely NOT a useage or variant of the Latin Rite, but its own rite. Among other things, the canon varies from day to day, as in many of the Gallican rites.

The Ambrosian rite, aside from having its unique structure of the Divine Office, has some peculiarities, such as a variant text of what is basically the Roman Canon. How much of this is local, how much general Italian, and how much Romanized, I do not know.

The Cistercian (both Trappist and Common Observance) and Carthusians follow the Benedictine Office, which differs from the Roman Secular office.

The Ambrosian Rite (I mean the real one, not the Novus Ordo clone) seems to be quite different in many respects from the Roman. I could be wrong, but as I understand it, it is also considered to be its own rite.

The Cistercians (O.Cist only) have a proper usage and Missal in the same way as the Dominicans, Carthusians, and Carmelites. It was not used by the OSCO, although one Trappist Abbey (in Austria, I think) has recently petitoned for, and been granted its use.

 

[Aramis]

None of the Western Rites are properly rites; The Ambrosian and Mozarabic can be considered Recensions, but all of them derive from the same Petrine Patrimony, thus making them of the same Rite.

Likewise for the Syriacs; The East and West both derive from one source, and are subrites under current use of the terms…

Essentially, the Mozarabic “Rite” is a Useage of the Gallican Recension of the Roman Rite. The Gallican “Rite” (recension) grows out of the Roman Church, and always fell under the Patriarch of Rome.

They all share the same Patrimony, and thus, the same Rite.

At least as the Church defines the term Rite in Canon Law.

 

[malphono]

None of the Western Rites are properly rites; The Ambrosian and Mozarabic can be considered Recensions, but all of them derive from the same Petrine Patrimony, thus making them of the same Rite.

Likewise for the Syriacs; The East and West both derive from one source, and are subrites under current use of the terms…

Essentially, the Mozarabic “Rite” is a Useage of the Gallican Recension of the Roman Rite. The Gallican “Rite” (recension) grows out of the Roman Church, and always fell under the Patriarch of Rome.

They all share the same Patrimony, and thus, the same Rite.

At least as the Church defines the term Rite in Canon Law.

For the liturgical practices proper to the several orders, I generally content myself with the term usage since they do derive, (in varying degrees), from the Latin Rite.

As for the Mozarabic or Ambrosian, of course neither is or was sui juris or anything close. They are not and never were. Perhaps the word “recension” is more accurate in legal terms. Strictly from the point of view of liturgical usage, though, they (along with Braga, I believe) do not derive from the Latin Rite, and are quite distinct from it. In effect they are as you put it for the Syriac Churhces, sub rites.

 

[mardukm]

In agreement with brother Aramis, I would also say the answer is “BOTH.”

Many Eastern and Oriental Catholics describe themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

Some Orthodox think that “Orthodox” and “Catholic” are diametrically opposed terms. However, strangely, these same Orthodox would not give a second thought of claiming that they are also “Catholic.”

If Orthodox can state that they are “Catholic” (which is certainly their right), then Eastern and Oriental Catholics have just as much a right to claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

It was fascinating to discover that the Celtic rite has a limited use in the modern Russian Orthodox Church - some places are permitted to use the 8th century Lorrha Missal of Ireland. These are a convert monastery in Belgium which is under the Moscow Patriarchate and a monastery and a few parishes in Australia which come under the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).

I have seen the Lorrha Missal on Internet sites and a Google.com search should find it easily.

There is a ROCOR monastary in North America that uses the Sarum use (rite)as well. With an added epiclesis, but it still quite interesting. I have to give the Russians credit for reviving these long dead rites for limited use like that. Its something I wish the Catholic Church would do, even in limited uses(such as lone monastaries or even special occasions or in the case of the Sarum, it should be adopted as a legitimate alternative all over England for latins, being that it was only removed because of the reformation.

 

[Alethiaphile]

If Orthodox can state that they are “Catholic” (which is certainly their right), then Eastern and Oriental Catholics have just as much a right to claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome.

That doesn’t follow at all. If you want to concede the term “Catholic” to the Orthodox, fine, but that doesn’t mean Eastern Catholics are Orthodox. Words do have meanings.