"Rite" terminology

[Peter_J]

Hi all.

Various discussions here show that there’s a lot of confusion between the terms church and rite. (Not to rehash old discussions, but one highly-recognizable example is people saying “22 Eastern Catholic Rites”, when that should be “22 Eastern Catholic Churches”.)

Well anyhow, the particular one I have in mind is also extremely common: people referring to the Roman Rite as “the Latin Rite”. (The Latin Church actually encompasses Roman-Rite Catholics, Ambrosian-Rite Catholics, Bragan-Rite Catholics, Mozarabic-Rite Catholics, and others.)

How can we encourage the correct use of “rite” and “church”?

One small thought I have is, since “Roman-Rite Catholic” is correct but rather cumbersome, perhaps abbreviating it as “RRC” would help it to get used more. (The abbreviation “RC” for “Roman Catholic” is already popular, though of course the definition of “Roman Catholic” varies.)

Anyone else want to throw an idea in?

 

[davetv]

Hi all.

Various discussions here show that there’s a lot of confusion between the terms church and rite. (Not to rehash old discussions, but one highly-recognizable example is people saying “22 Eastern Catholic Rites”, when that should be “22 Eastern Catholic Churches”.)

Well anyhow, the particular one I have in mind is also extremely common: people referring to the Roman Rite as “the Latin Rite”. (The Latin Church actually encompasses Roman-Rite Catholics, Ambrosian-Rite Catholics, Bragan-Rite Catholics, Mozarabic-Rite Catholics, and others.)

How can we encourage the correct use of “rite” and “church”?

One small thought I have is, since “Roman-Rite Catholic” is correct but rather cumbersome, perhaps abbreviating it as “RRC” would help it to get used more. (The abbreviation “RC” for “Roman Catholic” is already popular, though of course the definition of “Roman Catholic” varies.)

Anyone else want to throw an idea in?

Language changes over time. Maybe rite is the right word now.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

“Rite” can never be the correct word when what one actually means is “particular Churches sui iuris.” As I’ve heard one priest say, “People belong to a Church, not to a rite.” A rite belongs to a particular Church. “Rite” is only appropriate when referring to the liturgical traditions of a particular Church.

There seems to be two views on this points. The first view is to downplay the use of “rite” in favor of “particular Church.” This view emphasizes the Catholic Church as a Communion of particular Churches which are self-governing and unique. In other words, it’s main focus is on diversity within the Church.

The second view would focus on the use of the word “rite” and would not focus so much on “particular Churches.” This view seeks to emphasize the unity of the Catholic Church with regards to core teachings (i.e. dogma), while at the same time recognizing diversity in small “t” traditions.

Both views have their strengths and weakness, and both, I believe, need one another to balance out the weaknesses. In the first there is often a tendency to emphasize diversity almost to the point of “irreconcilable difference.” In the second there is a tendency to focus on unity almost to the point of ignoring diversity, even legitimate diversity in teaching.

In my personal opinion, the second view only works when one does not equate “Catholic” with “Roman Catholic,” but rather recognizes true diversity in the Church.

But more to the point, “rite” simply refers to the diversity of liturgical tradition within the Catholic Church. As was mentioned above, even in the Roman Church there are a number of different rites. At one time most religious orders even had their own rite of the Mass. But in all cases the rite belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

To refer to Eastern Catholics as “Eastern Rite Catholics” is to ignore that there is more than one Eastern Rite. And even within a particular Eastern Rite - say, the Byzantine Rite - there are multiple recensions and usages of that Rite. So when someone says “Eastern Rite Catholic,” my first thought is “Which rite?” But when someone says, “Melkite Catholic,” “Maronite Catholic,” “Romanian Catholic,” “Ukrainian Catholic,” “Coptic Catholic,” “Ethiopian Catholic,” etc., etc., etc. I know exactly what they are talking about (as does any Catholic who has a cursory knowledge of the Eastern Catholic Churches).

 

[Kopratic]

I have a question.

First of all, thanks to this forum, I’ve learned a great multitude of things about the Eastern Catholic Churches. In fact, I’ve been able to put my knowledge – albeit little – to the test and have corrected others who use the terms rite/Church interchangeably, explaining to them that a Church is different than a rite, etc.

Anyway, my question is this: Do different rites just have different methods of celebrating the Eucharist {Mass, Divine Liturgy, Qurbana…}, or is it with all the sacraments? For example, I am aware that the sacrament of Confession is performed differently for Roman Catholics than it is for Eastern Catholics. However, is Confession performed differently between the different Eastern rites? I hope that made some sense. Thank you!

 

[malphono]

How can we encourage the correct use of “rite” and “church”?

If you want my :twocents: (which you probably don’t but here it is anyway …), I’d say we can’t. There are multiple problems, not the least of which is that far too many churches bill themselves as being of a “Rite” … just think of the signs: “St X Catholic Church” and in smaller print underneath “X Rite.” I suppose I understand the “why” of it, (in part, at least, to appeal to the sensibilities of Latins), but it still doesn’t sit all that well with me. Perhaps that’s because I see even the signage as being symbolic of the idea of “Catholic first” with our true identity relegated to second place. Just like in the real world, isn’t it?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Pope Paul VI uses “Church” and “Rite” as synonyms in the 1964 document Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 2:

The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites.

Perhaps there’s a distinction between a “Rite” and a “rite.”

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
How can we encourage the correct use of “rite” and “church”?

We can’t encourage the correct usage? Or we can’t do so as easily as we would like?

 

[MorEphrem]

It has been said from Rome in the past that the Eastern Churches are Churches (with proper dignity and orthodoxy) and not Rites (i.e. ritual), but until that is learned by the Latins then teaching them to call us Churches instead of Rites is simply wordplay. Where does this begin? In better catechesis lessons - but I’m very skeptical that the situation of catechesis for Latins in the US will improve so I expect to be called an Eastern “Rite” until I die.

 

[malphono]

We can’t encourage the correct usage? Or we can’t do so as easily as we would like?

I think it’s pretty much as [post=11224556]MorEphrem[/post] says (but see below). It’s kind of like teaching a stone to do somersaults.

It has been said from Rome in the past that the Eastern Churches are Churches (with proper dignity and orthodoxy) and not Rites (i.e. ritual), but until that is learned by the Latins then teaching them to call us Churches instead of Rites is simply wordplay. Where does this begin? In better catechesis lessons - but I’m very skeptical that the situation of catechesis for Latins in the US will improve so I expect to be called an Eastern “Rite” until I die.

No argument from me, but actually, I think the process would best begin at home. IOW, as in the signage example I gave earlier, it would seem that, in the first place, our own would should stop using “Catholic first, identify second” language first. OTOH, it’s more likely that the stone will do somersaults than catechesis in general, Latin or otherwise, improving to any noticeable degree.

 

[CDB1718]

I made this mistake recently. In that case, my mind just flipped them around and I didn’t notice it before typing.

It’s easy in the east. We belong to a Church, the Church uses a rite.

It’s not that easy in the west. They belong to a rite that is used by a Church. They argue over the use of the word Roman, which some say is pejorative while others say it is encompassing of all Catholics. They don’t know the word Latin except in the context of the Traditional Latin Mass. They’ll tell you not to say Traditional Latin Mass, Novus Ordo, Extraordinary Form, Old Rite, or any other word to describe them because all of them are outdated, superseded, incorrectly applied, inaccurate, pejorative or something according to some group who will attack you for using it.

If they don’t know what they are or what they want to be called, how can we be expected to keep it all straight? We have enough work with knowing who were are and teaching our own about the use of rite or church in the easy context of the east. Getting our own terminology together would be a great witness toward encouraging the west to do the same.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi everyone and thanks for the responses. I’ve been meaning to comment on a number of them, but I keep postponing it thinking “Oh I don’t have much time right now.” But I guess I’d better start now, before I fall even further behind …

It’s easy in the east. We belong to a Church, the Church uses a rite.

It’s not that easy in the west.

Oh I don’t know; it seems to me that whichever system you’re accustomed to would be “easier”.

 

[Peter_J]

“Rite” can never be the correct word when what one actually means is “particular Churches sui iuris.” As I’ve heard one priest say, “People belong to a Church, not to a rite.” A rite belongs to a particular Church. “Rite” is only appropriate when referring to the liturgical traditions of a particular Church.

There seems to be two views on this points. The first view is to downplay the use of “rite” in favor of “particular Church.” This view emphasizes the Catholic Church as a Communion of particular Churches which are self-governing and unique. In other words, it’s main focus is on diversity within the Church.

The second view would focus on the use of the word “rite” and would not focus so much on “particular Churches.” This view seeks to emphasize the unity of the Catholic Church with regards to core teachings (i.e. dogma), while at the same time recognizing diversity in small “t” traditions.

Both views have their strengths and weakness, and both, I believe, need one another to balance out the weaknesses. In the first there is often a tendency to emphasize diversity almost to the point of “irreconcilable difference.” In the second there is a tendency to focus on unity almost to the point of ignoring diversity, even legitimate diversity in teaching.

In my personal opinion, the second view only works when one does not equate “Catholic” with “Roman Catholic,” but rather recognizes true diversity in the Church.

But more to the point, “rite” simply refers to the diversity of liturgical tradition within the Catholic Church. As was mentioned above, even in the Roman Church there are a number of different rites. At one time most religious orders even had their own rite of the Mass. But in all cases the rite belongs to the Church, not the other way around.

To refer to Eastern Catholics as “Eastern Rite Catholics” is to ignore that there is more than one Eastern Rite. And even within a particular Eastern Rite - say, the Byzantine Rite - there are multiple recensions and usages of that Rite. So when someone says “Eastern Rite Catholic,” my first thought is “Which rite?” But when someone says, “Melkite Catholic,” “Maronite Catholic,” “Romanian Catholic,” “Ukrainian Catholic,” “Coptic Catholic,” “Ethiopian Catholic,” etc., etc., etc. I know exactly what they are talking about (as does any Catholic who has a cursory knowledge of the Eastern Catholic Churches).

Good post.

One thing you didn’t say explicitly, but I think is implied in many of your points, is that (besides the obvious incorrect usages) there are many usages that aren’t strictly incorrect but are problematic nevertheless: for example, “Byzantine-Rite Catholics” isn’t wrong, but if someone *always *used that phrase, and never mentioned “Melkite Catholics” or “Ukrainian Catholics” etc, you might start to wonder “Is this person aware that there are 14 different EC Churches that use the Byzantine Rite?”