What makes a rite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ridgerunner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ridgerunner

Guest
Aramis:

This is off topic, but I hope you’ll forgive me. Is the Ruthenian Rite the same thing as “Ukrainian Rite”? Is the liturgical language Ukrainian or Old Slavonic?
 
This is off topic, but I hope you’ll forgive me. Is the Ruthenian Rite the same thing as “Ukrainian Rite”? Is the liturgical language Ukrainian or Old Slavonic?
The Rite is Byzantine. The Ruthenians and the Ukrainians, as well as several other of the Churches of the Byzantine-Slav Tradition, serve the Liturgy according to the Ruthenian Rescension (AKA the Little Russian Rescension, as opposed to the Great Russian or Nikonian Rescension and the Old Ritualist or Pre-Nikonian Rescension).

I have to run, if no one posts an explanation in the interim, I’ll add info tonight on the distinctions.

Many years,

Neil
 
Aramis:

This is off topic, but I hope you’ll forgive me. Is the Ruthenian Rite the same thing as “Ukrainian Rite”? Is the liturgical language Ukrainian or Old Slavonic?
Neither is properly a rite, but a Church Sui Iuris; they are not the same one, but are closely related, and both are of the Slavonic Recension of the Byzantine rite.

English is the Liturgical Language of the Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittspubrgh, with Church Slavonic allowed for use, while Church Slavonic is the liturgical language of the two exarchates in Europe.

due to different translations by various churches, those churches which use English often differ slightly in both the exact wording, and in the rubrics of how they are said.

The Ukrainian DL’s I’ve seen on TV have the Anaphora spoken; the Ruthenians often sing all of it, or say all but the words fo institution (which are usually sung). Eparch John of Torronto, a Ukrainian, while celebrating the DL in Anchorage, spoke the anaphora.
 
Neither is properly a rite, but a Church Sui Iuris; they are not the same one, but are closely related, and both are of the Slavonic Recension of the Byzantine rite.

English is the Liturgical Language of the Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittspubrgh, with Church Slavonic allowed for use, while Church Slavonic is the liturgical language of the two exarchates in Europe.

due to different translations by various churches, those churches which use English often differ slightly in both the exact wording, and in the rubrics of how they are said.

The Ukrainian DL’s I’ve seen on TV have the Anaphora spoken; the Ruthenians often sing all of it, or say all but the words fo institution (which are usually sung). Eparch John of Torronto, a Ukrainian, while celebrating the DL in Anchorage, spoke the anaphora.
I must disagree with my brother on some points of terminology and fact.

The Byzantine Rite has two Traditions - Greek and Slav. A Rescension is a level of difference below that of Tradition and there is not a Slav Rescension.

The Rescensions within the Byzantine-Greek Tradition are the:
  • Greek
  • Graeco-Arabic
  • Graeco-Georgian
  • Graeco-Italian
The Rescensions within the Byzantine-Slav Tradition are the:
  • Great Russian (or Nikonian)
  • Old Ritualist (or Pre-Nikonian)
  • Romanian
  • Ruthenian (or Little Russian)
Church Slavonic is, indeed, the liturgical language of the Ruthenian jurisdictions in Europe, but those are an Eparchy (Mukachevo of the Ruthenians) and an Exarchate (that of the Czech Greek-Catholics), rather than 2 exarchates.

Vladyka John (Pazak) is not a Ukrainian hierarch; he heads the Eparchy of Saints Cyril & Methodius in Toronto of the Slovaks. The Eparchy of Toronto (and Eastern Canada) of the Ukrainians is headed by Vladyka Stephen (Chmilar).​

To follow through on the promise I posted earlier to outline the distinctions:

The breakout is:
  • Rite
  • Tradition
  • Rescension
  • Church
  • Usage
  • Jurisdiction
  • Dependent Jurisdiction
Traditions are divisions within a Rite that principally reflect historical variations of culture or ecclesial language. Within some Traditions, there are also what are styled Rescensions.

Rescensions reflect a further defining of the form of worship by characteristics unique to one or more of the Churches in a Tradition. (Historically, the term Rescension had only been used in the form “Ruthenian Rescension” and applied to distinctions observed in the liturgical worship of Churches which utilized the liturgical forms of the Ruthenians. However, as no other term adequately serves to mark differences immediately below the level ordinarily styled as Tradition, “Rescension” needs must fill the bill.)

Usage is a term of relatively recent origin that ordinarily denotes limited, localized differences within a Church itself (as opposed to Rescensions, which occur within a Rite or Tradition).

The Churches sui iuris which observe the Ruthenian Rescension are the:
  • Croatian Greek-Catholic Church (including the Macedonian, Serbian, and Montenegron jurisdictions within it)
  • Hungarian Greek-Catholic Church
  • Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church (including both the Metropolia of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians and the Eparchy of Mukachevo of the Ruthenians, as well as the Czech exarchate)
  • Slovak Greek-Catholic Church
  • Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church
and the Eparchy of Maramoras of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church (all other canonical jurisdictions of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church utilize the Romanian Rescension).

Many years,

Neil
 
Someone in the know, is New Advent’s list of eastern rites correct?

newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

The definitions begin about 1/2 through the entry.

And for those who want what New Advent says, and for my own benefit, here’s what I read:

7 groups described under the heading Byzantine Catholics: Melkites (Syria/Egypt), Melkites (Greece/Trukey), Georgian (1 congregation), Ruthenians, Bulgarian, Rumanian, and Italo-Greeks.

Chaldean
Alexandrian
Abyssianian
Syrian
Uniat Church of Malabar
Armenians
Maronites
 
Someone in the know, is New Advent’s list of eastern rites correct?

newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

The definitions begin about 1/2 through the entry.

And for those who want what New Advent says, and for my own benefit, here’s what I read:

7 groups described under the heading Byzantine Catholics: Melkites (Syria/Egypt), Melkites (Greece/Trukey), Georgian (1 congregation), Ruthenians, Bulgarian, Rumanian, and Italo-Greeks.

Chaldean
Alexandrian
Abyssianian
Syrian
Uniat Church of Malabar
Armenians
Maronites
Not entirely, tho’ the list is not without merit still, and was the understanding in 1913…

Currently, the Church recognizes only six rites, but 23 churches. And within the Roman Rite, there are several rescensions, and one of those has at least 3 usages…

The Rites are Roman, Constantinoplean (aka Byzantine), Antiochene, Alexandrian, Syriac (Chaldean), and Armenian.

There are some who feel the East Syriac, West Syriac, and Maronite rescensions are separate rites, even tho they are currently all considered syriac rite. As are the Jacobites and Thomas Christians, IIRC/IIUC.

There are a few who feel that the Slavic Byzantine has developed sufficiently distinct tradtions from the Constantinoplean to be a separate Rite, but note that the Eastern Orthodox have two Rites, but do not truly differentiate between the Antiochene and Byzantine rites, and some feel that the Antiochene is in fact the same rite, merely a different recension.
 
Neil:
+John is a Ukrainian Hierarch, and was ordained in the Ukrainian GCC, and his metropolitan is the Metropolitan of Winnipeg. He is the Bishop for the Slovenians, but is himself a Ukrainian.

See the Canadian CCB bio sketch on him. Or talk to him. His Grace is VERY approachable.
 
Neil:
+John is a Ukrainian Hierarch, and was ordained in the Ukrainian GCC, and his metropolitan is the Metropolitan of Winnipeg. He is the Bishop for the Slovenians, but is himself a Ukrainian.

See the Canadian CCB bio sketch on him. Or talk to him. His Grace is VERY approachable.
Aramis,

The Eparchy of Saints Cyril & Methodius in Toronto of the Slovaks is not of the Metropolia of Winnipeg; it is immediately subject to the Holy See (i.e., the Oriental Congregation), as are all canonical jurisdictions of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches sited in the diaspora.

Vladyka John is not Bishop of the Slovenes, but the Slovaks. The Slovenes, regretably, have no Byzantine jurisdictions - neither in the US nor in their native land.

Vladyka John indeed served, prior to his appointment to the episcopate, as a priest in the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Winnipeg. But, not unlike the question of to which Church or Rite an Eastern Rite hierarch would belong if elected to the papacy, one becomes on elevation what one then is.

Vladyka John is, btw, ethnically Rusyn/Slovak - not Ukrainian - (Pasak/Pacsak/Paszkiewicz.) That he served a UGCC parish is a function of the fact that his services were needed there and, as a Byzantine Redemptorist, he’d have been subject to transfer within the canonical jurisdictions served by the Redemptorists of the Byzantine Churches (which includes the Winnipeg Archeparchy) based on such. The historically Latin orders with Byzantine provinces (e.g., the Redemptorists, Jesuits, Franciscans) tend to assign clergy as needed, within the Rite of ascription, rather than the particular Church to which ordained.

When Vladyka John was ordained to the episcopate, Vladyka Michael, then-Archbishop of Winnipeg of the Ukrainians was the principal consecrator by virtue of episcopal seniority and that Vladyka John was of his clergy. The principal co-consecrators were Vladyka Basil, Archeparch of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians. and Vladyka Milan Chauteur, Apostolic Exarch of Kosice of the Slovaks.

Note that the Slovaks are more properly Ruthenian, not Ukrainian, and that Presov and Kosice - the present Slovak canonical jurisdictions in their homeland were, historically, Ruthenian. The Slovaks in Canada are charged with pastoral care of those Ruthenians in Canada, since the latter are without their own hierarchy and clergy there (as the Ruthenians in the US are charged with the pastoral care of Byzantine Slovaks in the US, for the same reasons), while the Ukrainians in Canada are charged with pastoral care of Byzantine Hungarian and Romanian Catholics in their country.

Note too that Vladyka John is, reportedly, under serious consideration to be named as successor to Vladkya Andrew (should the latter ever finally retire ::gopray2: ).

As to a CCCB bio of Vladyka John, I am unaware of any narrative biography. CCCB “bios” are typically bare-bones sketches, containing only relevant dates and contact info.

Many years,

Neil (looking at the thread topic and wondering how we got here :confused: )
 
Note too that Vladyka John is, reportedly, under serious consideration to be named as successor to Vladkya Andrew (should the latter ever finally retire ::gopray2: ).
Tsk tsk - but I echo that 😃
 
Currently, the Church recognizes only six rites, but 23 churches. And within the Roman Rite, there are several rescensions, and one of those has at least 3 usages…

The Rites are Roman, Constantinoplean (aka Byzantine), Antiochene, Alexandrian, Syriac (Chaldean), and Armenian.

There are some who feel the East Syriac, West Syriac, and Maronite rescensions are separate rites, even tho they are currently all considered syriac rite. As are the Jacobites and Thomas Christians, IIRC/IIUC.
Aramis,

The CCEO formally acknowledges Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan (Byzantine) Rites. There is not a “Syriac Rite”.

Syriac = Antiochene

What is now termed the Antiochene Rite was, at one time, typically divided between:
  • the West Syrian or West Syriac Rite, encompassing the Syriac and Malankara Catholics, and (by some definitions) the Maronites, and
  • the East Syrian or Syriac Rite, comprising the Chaldean and Malabarese Catholics
Subsequently, it was redesignated as the Antiochene Rite and the two sub-divisions were styled as the West and East Syrian Traditions of it.

Of late, the terminology “Antiochene” has been reserved to the Syriacs (and Malankara) and Chaldean has been added to the list of Rites, being formally cited as such in the CCEO. There are two theories to account for it being accorded as a Rite unto itself, with no particular basis to support either:
  • the change may relate to the unique aspect observed in the Liturgy of its counterpart Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, i.e., that there are no explicit Words of Institution in the Anaphora which the Assyrians most commonly use (although that explanation is weakened by the fact that the Chaldeans themselves serve the Liturgy with explicit Words of Institution); or,
  • it may reflect an intent on Rome’s part to have a Rite associated with each Patriarchate, an argument weakened by the fact that the Maronite is no longer delineated as a separate Rite, although many still consider it so - a premise that may change as it returns to its roots by being rid of the myriad latinizations which have accrued to it over the centuries
There are a few who feel that the Slavic Byzantine has developed sufficiently distinct tradtions from the Constantinoplean to be a separate Rite, but note that the Eastern Orthodox have two Rites, but do not truly differentiate between the Antiochene and Byzantine rites, and some feel that the Antiochene is in fact the same rite, merely a different recension.
You are confusing Antiochian (referring those once styled as Melkite Orthodox, later as Syrian Orthodox, and now most commonly as Antiochian Orthodox) and Antiochene (referring to those alternatively styled as Syriac or Syrian Orthodox) here.

Melkite Catholics and Antiochian Orthodox serve according to the Graeco-Arabic Rescension of the Byzantine-Greek Tradition of the Constantinoplian/Byzantine Rite. The Eastern Orthodox certainly differentiate between the (Oriental Orthodox) Antiochene Rite of the Syriac Orthodox and the version of the Constantinoplian/Byzantine Rite of the (Eastern Orthodox) Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Many years,

Neil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top