What rite are you part of?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CharitableFaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
None of us here belong to a “rite.” We do, however, belong to one of 20+ particular sui iuris Churches (the Roman Church is one of these sui iuris Churches). A rite belongs to a Church, not the other way around. So you’re not a Latin Rite Catholic, you’re a Roman Catholic, or a Catholic belonging to the Roman Church, which utilizes one of the Latin Rites (Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.). I don’t say this to be uncharitable. It is simply a misconception that persists among many Catholic (Roman and otherwise).

That being said, I am a Melkite Greek Catholic, belonging to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church which utilizes the Byzantine Rite with some Syriac variations. 😃
 
Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!

I thought the Latin rite was the particular sui iuris Church and the rites used with in it are the Roman, Ambrosian and Mozarabic (I believe the Dominican, Franciscan rites, etc. are branches of the Roman rite?).

If I am right that the Latin rite is the particular Church (right, rite, write lol) why are they referred to as Roman Catholic and not Latin Catholics? Is this offensive to Catholics who practice the Ambrosian rite for example, being called “Roman” Catholic?

What do I know? lol

Blessings,
ZP

p.s.
Canonically Latin but I breath with both lungs of the Church. At least once a month I attend the Divine Liturgy at our local Byzantine Catholic Church (Ruthenian).
 
Latin, I am curious what some of the differences are between the rites, like language, culture, traditions etc. I heard that some of the eastern rites do the sacrements all at once instead of consecutivly, I’m wondering what some of the other difference are.
 
I am Byzantine Catholic. Both my husband and I were born into the Byzantine Catholic church, but back in the day it was called Greek Catholic. We are of the Slovak descent and some of our hymns are sung in the Slovak language.
 
drfye said:
Latin, I am curious what some of the differences are between the rites, like language, culture, traditions etc. I heard that some of the eastern rites do the sacrements all at once instead of consecutivly, I’m wondering what some of the other difference are.
Click to expand...
Among the Churches that use the Byzantine Rite (i.e. Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, etc.) the Sacraments of Initiation are all done at once. This was actually the universal tradition of the entire Church (including the Roman Church) in the First Millennium. However, in order to emphasize the role of the bishop in initiating new members into the Church, the West separated Confirmation/Chrismation from Baptism. The Eucharist was then put off until after the “newly illumined” was Confirmed. Under St. Pius X reception of the Eucharist was moved to an earlier time prior to Confirmation.

Languages vary greatly in the East. In the Byzantine tradition vernacular languages have always been the norm, although there are some standard liturgical (not “sacred”) languages such as Greek and Old Church Slavonic. What particular form of the vernacular is used also varies. Among the Greeks and Antiochians/Melkites a more formal version of the vernacular is typically used (the Antiochians/Melkites in the Middle East, for example, would use a formal version of Arabic). The Romanians have always used the spoken/informal version of Romanian for their liturgical services. This has required them to have regularly updated liturgical books so as to better reflect both the original Greek texts and the spoken form of Romanian at the time.

The Maronites’ liturgical language is Syriac, although Arabic has become the norm in the Middle East, and English here in the U.S. The Coptic Catholics and Orthodox use the Coptic language alongside Greek as their liturgical languages; Arabic and English are also used. The Ethiopians use Ge’ez as their liturgical language; I’m not sure if they have a tradition of using the vernacular as well. I for one have never seen an example of Ethiopian liturgy or hymnography in any other language than Ge’ez.

There are several other rites and particular Churches within the Catholic Communion, but I don’t know enough about them to say what their liturgical languages are or whether or not they use the vernacular.

As far as other differences are concerned, you’d be best off starting another thread, or better, going through old threads. Liturgical, historical, theological, spiritual, and canonical differences abound, as well as differences in emphasis. 😛
 
ziapueblo said:
Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!

I thought the Latin rite was the particular sui iuris Church and the rites used with in it are the Roman, Ambrosian and Mozarabic (I believe the Dominican, Franciscan rites, etc. are branches of the Roman rite?).

If I am right that the Latin rite is the particular Church (right, rite, write lol) why are they referred to as Roman Catholic and not Latin Catholics? Is this offensive to Catholics who practice the Ambrosian rite for example, being called “Roman” Catholic?
Click to expand...
Really, the particular church is the Latin Church, and the rite that is mostly used in it is the Roman Rite. It gets confusing, though, because the Roman Rite is often called the Latin Rite.
 
ziapueblo said:
I thought the Latin rite was the particular sui iuris Church
Click to expand...
You are not part of a Rite.

Think of a Rite as a verb, instead of a noun, if that will help.

A rite is something you do, not something you are part of, like a club or company or something.

You would be part of the Latin church, which actually has several rites and usages, although for many centuries the ideal was to have just one homogenous rite and the others were suppressed considerably. Thus a person could worship in the Mozarabic rite in Spain, or the Ambrosian rite in Italy or the Anglican Use (of the Latin rite) in the USA, but always a member of the Latin church.

The Ethiopian Catholic church has two rites: the Latin and the Coptic rites. Most other churches have just one rite, but it can be the same for multiple churches. The Byzantine rite is used by several churches, so one does not belong to the Byzantine rite, one worships in the Byzantine rite. In other words one uses the Byzantine rite in worship when attending a Ukrainian Greek catholic church, or a Melkite Catholic church, etc.

A study of the rites can give one a good historical perspective on how the church developed.

For instance, at one time the entire Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal plus Gibraltar) used forms of the Mozarabic rite. This is because the Chistian community of old Roman Spain is not a daughter church of the city of Rome, it was evangelized at the same time as the city of Rome and developed it’s own liturgical forms which lasted about eight centuries before the reconquista brought the newer Gallo-Latin rite used in Charlemagne’s empire. As the conquest moved south most churches were converted over to the new liturgy. Yet, the Mozarabic Rite survives at Toledo, the people who worship there are considered part of the Latin church structure today.
 
Hesychios said:
The Ethiopian Catholic church has two rites: the Latin and the Coptic rites. Most other churches have just one rite, but it can be the same for multiple churches. The Byzantine rite is used by several churches, so one does not belong to the Byzantine rite, one worships in the Byzantine rite. In other words one uses the Byzantine rite in worship when attending a Ukrainian Greek catholic church, or a Melkite Catholic church, etc.
Click to expand...
The Ethiopian Catholic Church makes for a very interesting study. See, for example, this thread.
 
CharitableFaith said:
I’m Latin Rite 🙂 Aka Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
Enrolled in the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh USA (Constantinopolitan Ruthenian Rite).

Most liturgical days at my parish we use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

*** rite :** a division of the Christian church using a distinctive liturgy
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Among the Churches that use the Byzantine Rite (i.e. Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, etc.) the Sacraments of Initiation are all done at once. This was actually the universal tradition of the entire Church (including the Roman Church) in the First Millennium. However, in order to emphasize the role of the bishop in initiating new members into the Church, the West separated Confirmation/Chrismation from Baptism. The Eucharist was then put off until after the “newly illumined” was Confirmed. Under St. Pius X reception of the Eucharist was moved to an earlier time prior to Confirmation.

Languages vary greatly in the East. In the Byzantine tradition vernacular languages have always been the norm, although there are some standard liturgical (not “sacred”) languages such as Greek and Old Church Slavonic. What particular form of the vernacular is used also varies. Among the Greeks and Antiochians/Melkites a more formal version of the vernacular is typically used (the Antiochians/Melkites in the Middle East, for example, would use a formal version of Arabic). The Romanians have always used the spoken/informal version of Romanian for their liturgical services. This has required them to have regularly updated liturgical books so as to better reflect both the original Greek texts and the spoken form of Romanian at the time.

The Maronites’ liturgical language is Syriac, although Arabic has become the norm in the Middle East, and English here in the U.S. The Coptic Catholics and Orthodox use the Coptic language alongside Greek as their liturgical languages; Arabic and English are also used. The Ethiopians use Ge’ez as their liturgical language; I’m not sure if they have a tradition of using the vernacular as well. I for one have never seen an example of Ethiopian liturgy or hymnography in any other language than Ge’ez.

There are several other rites and particular Churches within the Catholic Communion, but I don’t know enough about them to say what their liturgical languages are or whether or not they use the vernacular.

As far as other differences are concerned, you’d be best off starting another thread, or better, going through old threads. Liturgical, historical, theological, spiritual, and canonical differences abound, as well as differences in emphasis. 😛
Click to expand...
I see ,interesting thanks.
 
Some may say I’m the wrong rite lol. Interesting that some posters have identified themselves as “Roman” Catholic - I do so myself. The term was used in a perjorative sense way back in Britain and Ireland along with “Papist”. Ok so it’s off thread but interesting none the same - off to Mass now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top