Melkite vs Byzatine

[jasonjessica09]

What is the difference between the Melkite and Byzantine litrugies? I am familiar with the Byzantine liturgy. The Liturgy of St John Chrysontom is a beautiful way to worship Jesus Christ. I belive Melkite uses that as well?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Melkites are Byzantines.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Melkites use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, just as do the “Byzantines”. Usually (but not always) most parishes labeled “Byzantine Catholic” are actually Ruthenian Greek Catholics that have adopted the nomenclature of “Byzantine”. There are actually a good number of particular (sui iuris) Churches of the Byzantine tradition:

Ruthenian
Melkite
Romanian
Ukrainian
Russian
Italo-Byzantine
Greek
Serbian
Georgian

and a good number of others.

Hope this helps.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[highcalling]

So the confusion is cleared up when you realize how to refer to the “rites” of the Church. One refers to a rite based on the language of that rite (e.g. Greek Rite, Latin Rite, Slavic Rite, Syriac Rite, Coptic Rite, etc.). According to the Melkite patriarch they are Greek Rite and should not be referred to as Byzantine Rite. Especially since the Melkites are a branch of the Antiochean Patriarchy and are of greater antiquity than the Byzantine Patriarchy. The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was developed based on the Antiochean liturgy. Not the other way around.

Hope that helps.

 

[ciero]

So the confusion is cleared up when you realize how to refer to the “rites” of the Church. One refers to a rite based on the language of that rite (e.g. Greek Rite, Latin Rite, Slavic Rite, Syriac Rite, Coptic Rite, etc.). According to the Melkite patriarch they are Greek Rite and should not be referred to as Byzantine Rite. Especially since the Melkites are a branch of the Antiochean Patriarchy and are of greater antiquity than the Byzantine Patriarchy. The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was developed based on the Antiochean liturgy. Not the other way around.

Hope that helps.

Any church that uses the Liturgy of Constantinople is referee to as Byzantine. In the US the Ruthenians have tried to monopolize that term. The Melkites do stem from The church of Antioch, but the West Antiochene church has been Byzantine Liturgically for over 1000 years.

 

[dvdjs]

Any church that uses the Liturgy of Constantinople is referee to as Byzantine. In the US the Ruthenians have tried to monopolize that term. The Melkites do stem from The church of Antioch, but the West Antiochene church has been Byzantine Liturgically for over 1000 years.

While Ruthenians may have used the term first in the US, I have never seen any evidence of their attempting to monopolize the term. The claim, made so commonly, seems totally specious: I ask over and over again for evidence of complaint by the Ruthenian church against other churches - including Melkites, Ukrainians, Romanians, and Russians - who also use the term. I have yet to have a reply. However, this charge gets repeated.

Please feel free to call your own particular church whatever you wish. Please extend that courtesy to others.

 

[Diakonia]

So the confusion is cleared up when you realize how to refer to the “rites” of the Church. One refers to a rite based on the language of that rite (e.g. Greek Rite, Latin Rite, Slavic Rite, Syriac Rite, Coptic Rite, etc.). According to the Melkite patriarch they are Greek Rite and should not be referred to as Byzantine Rite. Especially since the Melkites are a branch of the Antiochean Patriarchy and are of greater antiquity than the Byzantine Patriarchy. The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was developed based on the Antiochean liturgy. Not the other way around.

One does not refer to a Rite based on the language of the Rite - each Rite is served in one or more languages, liturgical and vulgar.

There is no Greek Rite; the Greek Tradition is one of two Traditions within the Byzantine or Constantinoplian Rite (the other being the Slavic or Slavonic Tradition). There is no Coptic Rite; the Coptic Tradition is of the Alexandrian Rite, as is the Ge’ez. There is no Syriac Rite; the West Syrian Tradition is of the Antiochene Rite. The East Syrian Tradition is of the Assyro-Chaldean Rite.

No Melkite Patriarch - neither Maximos IV, Maximos V, nor Gregorios III - has ever declared that the Melkite Church should not be referred to as Byzantine in its ritual praxis.

The 75th Anniversary Directory of the Pittsburgh Metropolia states that the launching in 1956 of the (then) exarchial newspaper - The Byzantine Catholic World - ‘marked the continuation of the practice started in the late 1940’s whereby the traditional appellation of “Greek Catholic” was replaced by the term “Byzantine Catholic” in an effort to clarify the religious and ritual identification of the Church for American Catholics.’

Will there ever come a time in this forum when Latins will cease to explain our Churches and our Rites to us?

 

[Vico]

You can compare the Melkite with the Byzantine versions:

Byzantine (PDF is here): metropolitancantorinstitute.org/Publications2.html

Melkite (PDF is here): melkite.org/Dliturgy.htm

 

[Diakonia]

While Ruthenians may have used the term first in the US, I have never seen any evidence of their attempting to monopolize the term. The claim, made so commonly, seems totally specious: I ask over and over again for evidence of complaint by the Ruthenian church against other churches - including Melkites, Ukrainians, Romanians, and Russians - who also use the term. I have yet to have a reply. However, this charge gets repeated.

Please feel free to call your own particular church whatever you wish. Please extend that courtesy to others.

You actually have the story reversed. The complaints were made by others against the Ruthenian adoption of the term. While I doubt that one could put hands on documentary evidence, I can remember grumblings in the late 50’s and early 60’s among some of the other Churches against the Ruthenian decision to adopt the usage.

However, there wasn’t really a venue to air these complaints nor a hierarchy to voice them. It was before the Melkites or Romanians had canonical jurisdictions in the US. The Melkites were not consistent in which terminology they employed and sometimes employed what was, effectively, redundant usage, describing a temple as ‘Byzantine Melkite Greek-Catholic’. The Melkite’s principal point of contention was that they did not want to be perceived as ‘Greek’ - though the average American had no clue what ‘Melkite’ meant and ‘Byzantine’ wasn’t much more familiar.

The most curious part of the whole decision to effect a shift to ‘Byzantine’ was that ‘Greek Catholic’ was already firmly ensconced in usage among the Ruthenian temples in the Church’s heartland - the Steel and Coal Belts and the areas adjacent to them. But that usage was shared with the Ukrainians. Although the latter were sometimes nominated as ‘Galicians’, a term commonly used for the Philadelphia exarchate in Church documents as late as the 40s, it was equally unfamiliar and never employed in nominating their temples. Thus, not having to share use of ‘Greek Catholic’ was a winning situation for them.

There has also been speculation that ‘Rusyn’ was too likely to be mistakenly understood as equivalent to ‘Russian’ in an era when the latter term represented, at best, an ally looked on with some distrust and, at worst, a barely disguised enemy.

Other, alternative, terminologies, such as White (Carpatho-Rusyn) versus Red (Ukrainian) Ruthenians, never had a real place on this side of the ocean. And, when Bishop Orestes (Chornock), of blessed memory, adopted the term ‘Carpatho-Rusyn’ for the Orthodox ecclesia which he formed, the available alternatives were effectively narrowed.

 

[Vico]

The Maronite and Melkite Churches formed their exarchates in the USA in 1966. The Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches already had exarchates since 1924, both of which became eparchies in 1958 (Ukrainian) and 1963 (Ruthenian). Followed by Maronite and Melkite eparchies in 1971 adn 1976. So at the time of the name change from Ruthenian to Byzantine in 1977, the following were the US jurisdictions:

1924 Ukrainian Apostolic Exarchate USA – Bishop Constantine Bohachevsky
1924 Ruthenian Apostolic Exarchate USA – Bishop Basil Takach
1956 Ukrainian Apostolic Exarchate of Stamford USA (Ukrainian)
1958 Metropolitan Archdiocese of Philadelphia from Exarchate (Ukrainian)
1961 Eparchy of Saint Nicholas of Chicago (Ukrainian)
1963 Eparchy of Pittsburgh and Eparchy of Passaic from Exarchate (Ruthenian)
1966 Apostolic Exarchate USA, Faithful of the Oriental Rite (Melkite)
1966 Apostolic Exarchate USA, Maronite
1969 Archeparchy of Munhall renamed from Pittsburgh, and Eparchy of Parma created
1971 Eparchy of Saint Maron of Detroit (Maronite)
1976 Eparchy of Newton (Melkite)
1977 ritus bizantini - renamed from Pittsburgen(sis) Ruthenorum

 

[Diakonia]

So at the time of the name change from Ruthenian to Byzantine in 1977

Vico,

"Byzantine’ had already been adopted as the styling of the Ruthenian Catholic Church well before 1977.

I’m looking at the 1975 Official Catholic Directory as I type and see "Byzantine Rite Archeparchy of Munhall’ (p.523) and, if I pick up the 1949 Silver Jubilee Directory of the Pittsburgh jurisdiction, it is titled “Byzantine Slavonic Rite Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh”, albeit, in the introductory text, reference is made to the “Pittsburgh Greek Rite Diocese”.

 

[dvdjs]

You actually have the story reversed. The complaints were made by others against the Ruthenian adoption of the term. While I doubt that one could put hands on documentary evidence, I can remember grumblings in the late 50’s and early 60’s among some of the other Churches against the Ruthenian decision to adopt the usage.

However, there wasn’t really a venue to air these complaints nor a hierarchy to voice them. It was before the Melkites or Romanians had canonical jurisdictions in the US. The Melkites were not consistent in which terminology they employed and sometimes employed what was, effectively, redundant usage, describing a temple as ‘Byzantine Melkite Greek-Catholic’. The Melkite’s principal point of contention was that they did not want to be perceived as ‘Greek’ - though the average American had no clue what ‘Melkite’ meant and ‘Byzantine’ wasn’t much more familiar.

The most curious part of the whole decision to effect a shift to ‘Byzantine’ was that ‘Greek Catholic’ was already firmly ensconced in usage among the Ruthenian temples in the Church’s heartland.

“Greek Catholic” was, in fact, firmly ensconced already in Austria Hungary. The Ruthenians faced the same issue in the US as you state was faced by the Melkites - not wanting to be perceived as “Greek”. This was a very common problem that led to the use of “Byzantine”. Moreover, there has, for more than half a century, been a real disinterest in delimiting this church in America to some specific ethnic group. Why would we do that? The usage of Byzantine has been freely adopted but by many others besides the Ruthenian church. So any grumblings are just that. There is still no evidence, to my knowledge, of an effort to monopolize the use of the term.

 

[5Loaves]

This has just raised an interesting question for me as a Russian Greek Catholic. My paperwork for change in church sui iuris says my transfer was to the “Russian Byzantine Catholic Church”. I didn’t think about it at the time. But I now am thinking there is no Russian Byzantine Catholic Church sui iuris. All the other parishes which remain open plus references to our Church in the Catholic Church statistics call the Church the “Russian Greek-Catholic Church”.

Ronald Roberson, CSP uses the name Russian Greek-Catholic Church when he’s talking about our Church sui iuris in documents he produces for the Catholic Church. (He the Latin Church’s official statistics guy, among other things, for Eastern Catholic Churches.)

The remaining three other Russian EC parishes in America are
St Andrew Russian Greek-Catholic, El Segundo
Ss Cyril & Methodius Russian Byzantine (Greek-Catholic) Community, Denver
St Michael the Archangel Russian Greek-Catholic Chapel, NYC

Before they closed there were also:
St Michael the Archangel Russian Greek-Catholic Chapel, Boston
Presentation of the Virgin Russian Greek-Catholic, Youville QC Canada

Sometime recently, but prior to my coming to Our Lady of Fatima, the then pastor, and parish, apparently began calling the parish “Our Lady of Fatima Byzantine Catholic Church”. That I guess was the parish’s prerogative for website and for signage but I don’t think that means the Church sui iuris of which we are part is the “Russian Byzantine Catholic Church” as stated in my Attestation for change in canonical status.

I don’t think a parish can change the name of the Church sui iuris which it’s a part.

 

[malphono]

Sometime recently, but prior to my coming to Our Lady of Fatima, the then pastor, and parish, apparently began calling the parish “Our Lady of Fatima Byzantine Catholic Church”. That I guess was the parish’s prerogative for website and for signage but I don’t think that means the Church sui iuris of which we are part is the “Russian Byzantine Catholic Church” as stated in my Attestation for change in canonical status.

I don’t think a parish can change the name of the Church sui iuris which it’s a part.

True. What a parish calls itself is rather immaterial. It’s similar to the use of “diocese” vs “eparchy.” These days, Rome officially considers all Eastern & Oriental jurisdictions to be “eparchies” but many were/are civilly incorporated using “diocese” in the name. So, in civil-speak those are “dioceses” but in church-speak they’re “eparchies.”

 

[Diakonia]

This has just raised an interesting question for me as a Russian Greek Catholic. My paperwork for change in church sui iuris says my transfer was to the “Russian Byzantine Catholic Church”.

The meaning is effectively the same - there was a time (only a few decades past) when the paperwork would have enrolled you in the Slavonic Rite and made no mention of the Particular Church.

Before they closed there were also:
St Michael the Archangel Russian Greek-Catholic Chapel, Boston

Nope. Our Lady of Kazan Russian Greek-Catholic Chapel

I don’t think a parish can change the name of the Church sui iuris which it’s a part.

Again, people are people. There is a UGCC parish/mission in CA that styles itself as ‘Eastern Catholic’.

 

[5Loaves]

Again, people are people. There is a UGCC parish/mission in CA that styles itself as ‘Eastern Catholic’.

Holy Wisdom in Sacramento calls itself “Holy Wisdom Eastern Catholic Parish” but it knows that it is in the UGCC, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, not the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church or the Ukrainian Eastern Catholic Church, etc. All the parishes in the UGCC know they are in the UGCC. That’s the name of their Church.

I fail to understand how our 4 remaining parishes, and the sadly closed parishes, and the parishes of our grandparents in Harbin, would not have a Church with one specific name, like the UGCC have a Church with a known specific name, UGCC, regardless of what any of her parishes call themselves.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Holy Wisdom in Sacramento calls itself “Holy Wisdom Eastern Catholic Parish” but it knows that it is in the UGCC, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, not the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church or the Ukrainian Eastern Catholic Church, etc. All the parishes in the UGCC know they are in the UGCC. That’s the name of their Church.

I fail to understand how our 4 remaining parishes, and the sadly closed parishes, and the parishes of our grandparents in Harbin, would not have a Church with one specific name, like the UGCC have a Church with a known specific name, UGCC, regardless of what any of her parishes call themselves.

Ukrainian parishes who seek to attract non-Ukrainians would try to mask as much as possible the word “Ukrainian” in the name because they know its a put-off for people of other ethnicity. We have a parish that has the words “Catholic Church” in big letters on the sign, then in smaller font sizes it says “Byzantine Rite”. Only in the schedule of Liturgy would you see “Ukrainian”. Its not that they are trying to deny that they are UGCC, but they want to tell people that they are not for Ukrainians only.

 

[5Loaves]

Ukrainian parishes who seek to attract non-Ukrainians would try to mask as much as possible the word “Ukrainian” in the name because they know its a put-off for people of other ethnicity. We have a parish that has the words “Catholic Church” in big letters on the sign, then in smaller font sizes it says “Byzantine Rite”. Only in the schedule of Liturgy would you see “Ukrainian”. Its not that they are trying to deny that they are UGCC, but they want to tell people that they are not for Ukrainians only.

I appreciate your point but it has nothing to do with the question I’m talking about regarding Churches sui iuris , not parishes, having a specific name, and trying to track down, apart from parish names, what is the name of the Russian Orthodox Church in communion with Rome of which I am a member as are and were the other parishes with the same heritage. The variations by which our Church sui iuris is known has never really been an issue for me until this particular thread started and it got me thinking, a Church sui iuris must have a name, not many names for the same one Church sui iuris.

Whatever sized letters you have on your sign and whatever they spell out, there is no question that you are a parish of the UGCC. That is my point. You know the one specific name of your Church, NOT merely of your parish.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I appreciate your point but it has nothing to do with the question I’m talking about regarding Churches sui iuris , not parishes, having a specific name, and trying to track down, apart from parish names, what is the name of the Russian Orthodox Church in communion with Rome of which I am a member as are and were the other parishes with the same heritage. The variations by which our Church sui iuris is known has never really been an issue for me until this particular thread started and it got me thinking, a Church sui iuris must have a name, not many names for the same one Church sui iuris.

Whatever sized letters you have on your sign and whatever they spell out, there is no question that you are a parish of the UGCC. That is my point. You know the one specific name of your Church, NOT merely of your parish.

Sometimes we would drop the “G” in the UGCC

 

[5Loaves]

Sometimes we would drop the “G” in the UGCC

“We” who? You mean the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church on her site and in her documents sometimes calls herself the Ukrainian Catholic Church?

I am only concerned with what the Church *sui iuris * is officially called, for the purposes of the concern I have raised, not with the myriad of variations that get tossed about informally by Church members and parishes.