Referring to a parish as an "Eastern Rite parish"

[YoungTradCath]

Not exactly but there are some members here who will insist on “politically correct” terminology. For example, “Eastern Rite” should, technically, be “Eastern Church sui juris” and heaven help you if you suggest the word “Mass” iso Divine Liturgy. That sort of thing. But anyway, it’s not something I’d sweat .

I don’t see how referring to a parish as an “Eastern Rite parish” can even be considered technically incorrect. If I were to say, “I am going to Milan and I will be attending an Ambrosian Rite parish while I am there,” that would be absolutely correct, technically and otherwise. The terminology of Church really doesn’t come into play here, unless we are talking like, “I will be attending a parish that uses a Rite of an Eastern Church,” but that is totally contrived and supremely ambiguous anyways. There does exist such a thing as the Eastern Rites, and I’m sure no one would deny that, and the existence of Eastern Churches by no means should deprive the place of the term Eastern Rites of its proper usage, nor does saying Eastern Rite somehow deny the semantic existence of the entity known as Eastern Churches.

/rant

 

[CDB1718]

I don’t see how referring to a parish as an “Eastern Rite parish” can even be considered technically incorrect. If I were to say, “I am going to Milan and I will be attending an Ambrosian Rite parish while I am there,” that would be absolutely correct, technically and otherwise. The terminology of Church really doesn’t come into play here, unless we are talking like, “I will be attending a parish that uses a Rite of an Eastern Church,” but that is totally contrived and supremely ambiguous anyways. There does exist such a thing as the Eastern Rites, and I’m sure no one would deny that, and the existence of Eastern Churches by no means should deprive the place of the term Eastern Rites of its proper usage, nor does saying Eastern Rite somehow deny the semantic existence of the entity known as Eastern Churches.

/rant

That’s like saying, “I am going to Venezuela and I will be attending an American parish while I am there,” when you’re going to the Basílica Catedral Nuestra Señora de Coromoto. Yes, it is technically correct to say it is a South American church, but that isn’t the conventional use of the word.

And it isn’t equivalent to discuss the multiple rites in the Roman Church in the same way we discuss the multiple Churches that use the Byzantine rite. To speak of the Ambrosian rite and all the Eastern Catholic Churches in the same way is to treat the Eastern Catholic Churches as if they are also rites of the Roman Church, and that is rubbing salt in fresh wounds.

It is not helpful to jump and shut down any conversation with the word rite in it, like some people do. But that doesn’t make it alright to take the opposite stand of moral equivalence and discourage people from using the correct terms. Eastern Catholic Church isn’t any more technical or difficult than South American cathedral.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s like saying, “I am going to Venezuela and I will be attending an American parish while I am there,” when you’re going to the Basílica Catedral Nuestra Señora de Coromoto. Yes, it is technically correct to say it is a South American church, but that isn’t the conventional use of the word.

And it isn’t equivalent to discuss the multiple rites in the Roman Church in the same way we discuss the multiple Churches that use the Byzantine rite. To speak of the Ambrosian rite and all the Eastern Catholic Churches in the same way is to treat the Eastern Catholic Churches as if they are also rites of the Roman Church, and that is rubbing salt in fresh wounds.

It is not helpful to jump and shut down any conversation with the word rite in it, like some people do. But that doesn’t make it alright to take the opposite stand of moral equivalence and discourage people from using the correct terms. Eastern Catholic Church isn’t any more technical or difficult than South American cathedral.

I am not speaking of the Ambrosian Rite as being comparable to an Eastern Church. I am speaking of the Ambrosian Rite as being comparable to the Byzantine Rite, in that both are Rites, and I don’t see how saying, “I am going to an Eastern Rite parish,” is any different from, “I am going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite.” That does not deny the existence of the Eastern Churches in any semantic sense because those statements are not concerned with Churches per se, but with Rites. It becomes tedious to have to constantly preface each statement about Eastern Rites with a clause about the fact that there are also Eastern Churches; the existence of former does not deny the existence of the latter. But perhaps this is just “one of those things.” Perhaps it is not the time to be so self-sure in speaking about this subject without all the prefaces because people really do believe that Eastern Rite=“part” of the Western Church or whatever. I’ll leave it alone.

 

[CDB1718]

I am not speaking of the Ambrosian Rite as being comparable to an Eastern Church. I am speaking of the Ambrosian Rite as being comparable to the Byzantine Rite, in that both are Rites, and I don’t see how saying, “I am going to an Eastern Rite parish,” is any different from, “I am going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite.” That does not deny the existence of the Eastern Churches in any semantic sense because those statements are not concerned with Churches per se, but with Rites. It becomes tedious to have to constantly preface each statement about Eastern Rites with a clause about the fact that there are also Eastern Churches; the existence of former does not deny the existence of the latter. But perhaps this is just “one of those things.” Perhaps it is not the time to be so self-sure in speaking about this subject without all the prefaces because people really do believe that Eastern Rite=“part” of the Western Church or whatever. I’ll leave it alone.

I agree with you that saying, “I am going to an Eastern Rite parish,” is not any different from saying, “I am going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite.”

It gives a glimpse into where you’re going and in some contexts it is exactly what’s needed. When you’re emphasizing how they do things, it is appropriate to discuss the rite.

Most people use this phrase as a default when they are referring to the people, the parish, the liturgy, and all of it packaged together. The package deal is the church. While we know what a person means, it is more accurate in that circumstance to say, “I am going to an Eastern Catholic parish,” or, “I am friends with someone who goes to the Ukrainian Catholic church.”

 

[Aramis]

I am not speaking of the Ambrosian Rite as being comparable to an Eastern Church. I am speaking of the Ambrosian Rite as being comparable to the Byzantine Rite, in that both are Rites,

Except that they aren’t comparable. THe Ambrosian “Rite” is a subset of the Roman Rite, with only a ritual tradition difference, and is of the Roman patrimony, and the Roman Ritual and liturgical tradition. Aside from who gets to approve the liturgical texts, it’s more comparable to the Anglican Use.

The Byzantine Rite is of the Constantinopolitan Patrimony, and has a distinct liturgical tradition and theological tradition - neither of which is true of the Ambrosian Rite.

The Antichene Rite likewise has a distinct liturgical, ritual, and theological tradition, arising from Antioch’s Patrimony; The Syro-Chaldean Rite is of the same patrimony, but has a distinct liturgical, ritual, and theological tradition as well.

The Armenian Rite is of the Patrimony of Jerusalem, with yet another distinct set of ritual, liturgical, and theological traditions.

The Alexandrian Rite is of the Alexandrian Patrimony, but has two liturgical and theological traditions, and three distinct ritual traditions… The case could be made that the Ethiopians are a separate rite from the Copts in the same way that the Syro-Chaldeans are from the Antiochenes.

 

[malphono]

I don’t see how referring to a parish as an “Eastern Rite parish” can even be considered technically incorrect. If I were to say, “I am going to Milan and I will be attending an Ambrosian Rite parish while I am there,” that would be absolutely correct, technically and otherwise. The terminology of Church really doesn’t come into play here, unless we are talking like, “I will be attending a parish that uses a Rite of an Eastern Church,” but that is totally contrived and supremely ambiguous anyways. There does exist such a thing as the Eastern Rites, and I’m sure no one would deny that, and the existence of Eastern Churches by no means should deprive the place of the term Eastern Rites of its proper usage, nor does saying Eastern Rite somehow deny the semantic existence of the entity known as Eastern Churches.

/rant

That’s not exactly what I meant. For my part, I was speaking of the custom of referring to the various Churches as “Eastern Rites” vs the more PC “Churches sui juris” and I thought that was clear. I simply said that I don’t sweat the pre-conciliar usage of Rite (upper-case “R”) in lieu of the post-conciliar, PC, “Church sui juris.” The difference there is nothing but semantics, and not even high-level sematics at that.

But here, it strikes me that you’re speaking of a particular locations, meaning parishes, and it seems to me the nuance of what you stated is somewhat pejorative. Even the Maronite Church, as tainted as it is by Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations (which will ultimately choke the life out of us but I digress), is not merely a “rite within the ‘Catholic’ Church” and even I, (who am admittedly both (a) not “PC” most of the time, and (b) diametrically opposed to neo-latinizations all of the time), take offense at that. It would be totally incorrect (politically or otherwise) to say “I’m going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite” (or “Maronite Rite” or whatever). Think of the implication in such a statement. OTOH, I wouldn’t much care if someone said “I’m going to a Maronite Rite parish” (or Chaldean Rite parish or Byzantine Rite parish, etc). Do you see the difference? I hope so. If not, I can’t help you.

 

[malphono]

The Antichene Rite likewise has a distinct liturgical, ritual, and theological tradition, arising from Antioch’s Patrimony; The Syro-Chaldean Rite is of the same patrimony, but has a distinct liturgical, ritual, and theological tradition as well.

Allow me a word here to clarify that the shared patrimony between the Eastern & Western Syriac Churches (and there is indeed a great deal if it) is really that of Edessa rather than Antioch.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Except that they aren’t comparable. THe Ambrosian “Rite” is a subset of the Roman Rite, with only a ritual tradition difference, and is of the Roman patrimony, and the Roman Ritual and liturgical tradition. Aside from who gets to approve the liturgical texts, it’s more comparable to the Anglican Use.

The Byzantine Rite is of the Constantinopolitan Patrimony, and has a distinct liturgical tradition and theological tradition - neither of which is true of the Ambrosian Rite.

The Antichene Rite likewise has a distinct liturgical, ritual, and theological tradition, arising from Antioch’s Patrimony; The Syro-Chaldean Rite is of the same patrimony, but has a distinct liturgical, ritual, and theological tradition as well.

The Armenian Rite is of the Patrimony of Jerusalem, with yet another distinct set of ritual, liturgical, and theological traditions.

The Alexandrian Rite is of the Alexandrian Patrimony, but has two liturgical and theological traditions, and three distinct ritual traditions… The case could be made that the Ethiopians are a separate rite from the Copts in the same way that the Syro-Chaldeans are from the Antiochenes.

The Ambrosian Rite is not a subset of the Roman Rite. The Ambrosian Rite is a distinct Rite, just like the Carthusian Rite is a distinct Rite. It is a subset of the Western/Latin liturgical tradition (the Western LLT is probably analagous to the Constantinopolitan Patrimony to which you refer ) just like the Roman Rite is. They are related, but not in the way that the Anglican Use is related to the Roman Rite; the AU is not a Rite, it is a use of the Roman Rite, but you know that. The Ambrosian Rite is a Rite unto itself.

Related is the consideration of “Forms” of rites. The Roman Rite has two Forms. So does the Ambrosian Rite.

A distinct Rite called a Rite cannot be “part” of another Rite. It can be related, yes, but not part of it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s not exactly what I meant. For my part, I was speaking of the custom of referring to the various Churches as “Eastern Rites” vs the more PC “Churches sui juris” and I thought that was clear. I simply said that I don’t sweat the pre-conciliar usage of Rite (upper-case “R”) in lieu of the post-conciliar, PC, “Church sui juris.” The difference there is nothing but semantics, and not even high-level sematics at that.

But here, it strikes me that you’re speaking of a particular locations, meaning parishes, and it seems to me the nuance of what you stated is somewhat pejorative. Even the Maronite Church, as tainted as it is by Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations (which will ultimately choke the life out of us but I digress), is not merely a “rite within the ‘Catholic’ Church” and even I, (who am admittedly both (a) not “PC” most of the time, and (b) diametrically opposed to neo-latinizations all of the time), take offense at that. It would be totally incorrect (politically or otherwise) to say “I’m going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite” (or “Maronite Rite” or whatever). Think of the implication in such a statement. OTOH, I wouldn’t much care if someone said “I’m going to a Maronite Rite parish” (or Chaldean Rite parish or Byzantine Rite parish, etc). Do you see the difference? I hope so. If not, I can’t help you.

I know the Maronite Church isn’t a “rite within the Catholic Church;” it is a Church. That’s why I stated I was not talking per se about Churches at all, but about Rites.

How are these two cases different?

“I am going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite.”

“I am going to a parish that uses a Western Rite.”

 

[malphono]

I know the Maronite Church isn’t a “rite within the Catholic Church;” it is a Church. That’s why I stated I was not talking per se about Churches at all, but about Rites.

OK.

How are these two cases different?

“I am going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite.”

“I am going to a parish that uses a Western Rite.”

In the first, the implication remains exactly what I said in my previous post. As for the second, I’ve only heard this from Orthodox when referring to their “Western Rite Vicariates” so I’m not sure what the intent is in the above example.

 

[YoungTradCath]

OK.

In the first, the implication remains exactly what I said in my previous post. As for the second, I’ve only heard this from Orthodox when referring to their “Western Rite Vicariates” so I’m not sure what the intent is in the above example.

Well, if we take a case where a lifelong Eastern Catholic were to say, “Tomorrow I am going to parish that uses a Western Rite,” I would probably say, “Okay.” It would be immediately self-apparent to me that the use of the word “Rite” implies that the parish will necessarily in fact be a parish of the Latin Church. I wouldn’t say, “Dontcha know that it’s really a parish of the Latin Church?” because that would be very obvious. In a similar way, saying, “Tomorrow I am going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite,” necessarily implies that the parish will in fact be a parish of an Eastern Church.

But perhaps because of the current situation which I thought had perhaps cooled off a bit, it might be better to just use “Eastern Church” from now on and only use the term “Rite,” which I maintain is completely legitimate if the conversation is in fact about liturgy and not ecclesial structure, in academic conversations.

 

[malphono]

Well, if we take a case where a lifelong Eastern Catholic were to say, “Tomorrow I am going to parish that uses a Western Rite,” I would probably say, “Okay.” It would be immediately self-apparent to me that the use of the word “Rite” implies that the parish will necessarily in fact be a parish of the Latin Church. I wouldn’t say, “Dontcha know that it’s really a parish of the Latin Church?” because that would be very obvious.

Perhaps, but I can hardly think of an Oriental or Easterner who would put it that way. Normally they’d say “I’m going to a Latin church” and be done with it.

In a similar way, saying, “Tomorrow I am going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite,” necessarily implies that the parish will in fact be a parish of an Eastern Church.

I have to continue to disagree here. Perhaps the difference between the two examples lies in the fact that the Latin Church is the most known and, of course, the largest. Hence, it strikes me as demeaning to say “I’m going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite” insofar as it suggests that such “Rite” is merely a subset of the Latin Church. Even I, as I said earlier, would take offense at that. But not to "I’m going an “X” Rite parish. In the latter, it’d be clear enough to me how the word “Rite” is used. In the former, not clear at all. There is a difference.

But perhaps because of the current situation which I thought had perhaps cooled off a bit, it might be better to just use “Eastern Church” from now on and only use the term “Rite,” which I maintain is completely legitimate if the conversation is in fact about liturgy and not ecclesial structure, in academic conversations.

Even the term “Eastern Church” is full of ambiguity, but I’ll agree that it’s perfectly legitimate to use the term “Rite” when speaking of liturgy, provided the term is qualified to designate which “Rite” is concerned. Personally I wouldn’t argue against it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It strikes me as demeaning to say “I’m going to a parish that uses an Eastern Rite” insofar as it suggests that such “Rite” is merely a subset of the Latin Church.

That is the crux of the matter. I would not assume that at all, because I know otherwise. But perhaps most people would assume that. You win.

 

[malphono]

That is the crux of the matter. I would not assume that at all, because I know otherwise. But perhaps most people would assume that. You win.

Not a matter of “winning” but you caught the point. Whereas you are more-or-less familiar with the score, the bulk of people (including many if not most CAF members) are not.

 

[UncleBill]

That is the crux of the matter. I would not assume that at all, because I know otherwise. But perhaps most people would assume that. You win.

Its as simple as this Youngtrad…we Easterners find it offensive…is that not enough reason not to use the term?

 

[MorEphrem]

Church has the connotation of equal dignity whereas a rite is what a Church uses as a means (i.e. rite of Baptism, etc.). The Melkite Church is a Church and not a rite because it is an assembly of individuals of the Body of Christ; to reduce them to saying they’re simply a ritual would be to dehumanize and devalue the legitimacy of their Church. I guess what I’m saying is the Church is defined by its assembly rather than the ritual it uses.

 

[babochka]

I don’t see how referring to a parish as an “Eastern Rite parish” can even be considered technically incorrect. If I were to say, “I am going to Milan and I will be attending an Ambrosian Rite parish while I am there,” that would be absolutely correct, technically and otherwise. The terminology of Church really doesn’t come into play here, unless we are talking like, “I will be attending a parish that uses a Rite of an Eastern Church,” but that is totally contrived and supremely ambiguous anyways. There does exist such a thing as the Eastern Rites, and I’m sure no one would deny that, and the existence of Eastern Churches by no means should deprive the place of the term Eastern Rites of its proper usage, nor does saying Eastern Rite somehow deny the semantic existence of the entity known as Eastern Churches.

/rant

It is not incorrect, but it is imprecise. I know a couple of Ukrainian parishes that refer to themselves as “St. So-and-so Eastern Catholic Parish”. I understand that they are trying to get away from ethnic associations in order to attract larger numbers, but how do we know which rite of the liturgy they celebrate? They could be Chaldean or Maronite or Melkite or Ukrainian or Syro-Malabar. Each liturgy would give you something very different.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t see how referring to a parish as an “Eastern Rite parish” can even be considered technically incorrect.

I see there are already a number of responses, but I’d like to add something that was mentioned to me not too long ago. Namely, that saying “Eastern-Rite parish”, “Eastern-Rite Catholics”, etc., even if not technically incorrect can give the impression that there is only one Eastern Rite.

It’s somewhat better if you specify which rite, e.g. saying “a Byzantine-Rite parish”. But even better, you could specify which church, e.g. instead of “Byzantine-Rite parish” you could say “Melkite parish”, “UGCC parish”, etc as the case may be.

 

[5Loaves]

“I am going to a parish that uses a Western Rite.”

I’d assume you mean a Western Rite Orthodox Church, or the “Holy Catholic Church, Western Rite” of the Continuing Anglican movement church.

 

[CDB1718]

I’d assume you mean a Western Rite Orthodox Church, or the “Holy Catholic Church, Western Rite” of the Continuing Anglican movement church.

Me, too. I’ve never heard someone say Western Rite except to mean the Antiochian Orthodox.

It’s always, “I am going to a Roman Catholic church.” Except the few who can’t think of that and say normal, regular, or plain-old Catholic to mean the same thing.