W
w_stewart
Guest
Why are there Byzantine rite, Latin rite, etc? Why is this so? How did these rites develop?
- Status
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
There is some interesting stuff here that should explain some of it:
DEFINITION OF AN EASTERN CHURCH
W
w_stewart
Guest
What is the history of every rite? When was the Latin rite started to be used? How about the other rites? And how do these rites differ form one another?
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Please refer to the sticky resource threads at the top of the forum.
Also the Catholic Encyclopedia has information on different rites. Here is what it says on the Roman and some other Rites;
You can find alot more there just by putting the word “rite” into their search engine.
These links borrowed from another post may also be helpful if accurate; (wiki is self editable).
Eastern Catholic Churches
Orthodox Churches
Peace.
W
w_stewart
Guest
Thank you for the links brother Joab.
A
Aramis
Guest
In the simplest of terms, a Rite is a group of churches which share a common theological, liturgical, and ecclesiastical tradition.
It is correct to say that the Russian Orthodox are just as much Byzantine Rite as are the Ruthenians of the Metropolian Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh.
It is correct to say that the Russian Orthodox are just as much Byzantine Rite as are the Ruthenians of the Metropolian Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
D
Daisiegirl
Guest
To identify any branch of the Orthodox, as part of the Byzantine Rite Catholic is absolutely incorrect and misleading… the martyrs of our Eastern Catholic rite, especially St. Josaphat, did not die in vain and such a comment cries for correction from Heaven…
A
Aramis
Guest
The Rite spans both Catholic and Orthodox. To call them Eastern Rite Catholics is wrong. But they are of the very SAME byzantine Rite; their theological, ecclesial, and liturgical Tradition (note the capital) are the same. Lots of “little t” traditions vary widely, and the theology is a broad field within the Byzantine Rite; many of the orthodox do not reject the dogmas of the Catholics other than the papacy’s role and powers.
The truth is simple. Not easy to wrap one’s head around at times, but very simple: The Unia are still unified in Rite with their Orthodox counterparts, while ecclesiastically and in obedience they are separated.
Likewise, there is no doubt that the TLM of the SSPX is the same Latin Rite Mass used in the FSSP TLM’s, and in the general indult TLM; but the SSPX are not in union, while the FSSP and Indult parishes never left union.
D
Daisiegirl
Guest
I know what we are and what we aren’t ~ Contrary to what you believe and state in your thread,Faithful Ukrainian Catholics do not hold onto the same theological teachings of the Orthodox, as I have shared in another thread, my dear brother… you are misled and uninformed… false ecumenism runs rampant even in our own Byzantine Rite. Pray to St. Josaphat for his intercession and proper discernment of Truth
G
guanophore
Guest
This history of the liturgy is the same. Yes, there are differences caused by pride and politics, but practices in both congregations derived the liturgy from the same source.
I am curious to know the difference, but it perhaps this is not the right thread?
G
guanophore
Guest
I am curious to know the difference, but it perhaps this is not the right thread?
D
Daisiegirl
Guest
Orthodox theology is different in regard to original sin, the sacrament of confession and even transsubstantiation… they also allow up to three marriages and two divorces… they do not accept the primacy of Peter or papal infallibility. They deny the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, purgatory and do not accept all the Church Councils. Of course the liturgy is the same, they’ve amputated themselves from the Body of Christ and hold onto tradition, as most do. Remember, Christianity came to Ukraine in 988 AD, as the Church of Christ ~ the Catholic Church, as we know it. The Orthodox really can not claim Apostolic Succession, as the Catholic Church does.
Because the Orthodox deny Catholic dogma, you have to ask yourself, are they heretics? Because they deny the primacy of Peter, you have to ask yourself, are they schismatic? Look up the definition of both terms. When you speak to a faithful Orthodox heirarchy member, they will be forced to claim that they believe the Catholic, is the heretic and schismatic. Hence, I really don’t know how each ‘Church’ got around lifting mutual excommunications.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, is compromising left and right, to accomodate the Orthodox, such as removing the Filioque from the Liturgy and even coming up with a new catechism. Very sad, indeed. St. Athanasius rolls over in his grave a few hundred times a day, I’m sure…
I am a granddaughter of a Faithful Ukrainian Catholic priest, who was imprisoned for not renouncing his Catholic Faith and conceding to the Orthodox, during WWII in Ukraine. Who will be first in line to say it was in vain? Who will be the first in line to say that my ancestors were misled to believe that martyrdom was the wiser choice, than renouncing their Faith and becoming Orthodox?
‘Faithful’ Uniates are often dry martyrs to this day. As for me, I’m just a little sheep, trying to stay in the fold and not get lost anymore… but every time I did, the good shepherd found me and brought me back safely.
Slava Icycy Xpucty!
Praise be to God!
Because the Orthodox deny Catholic dogma, you have to ask yourself, are they heretics? Because they deny the primacy of Peter, you have to ask yourself, are they schismatic? Look up the definition of both terms. When you speak to a faithful Orthodox heirarchy member, they will be forced to claim that they believe the Catholic, is the heretic and schismatic. Hence, I really don’t know how each ‘Church’ got around lifting mutual excommunications.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, is compromising left and right, to accomodate the Orthodox, such as removing the Filioque from the Liturgy and even coming up with a new catechism. Very sad, indeed. St. Athanasius rolls over in his grave a few hundred times a day, I’m sure…
I am a granddaughter of a Faithful Ukrainian Catholic priest, who was imprisoned for not renouncing his Catholic Faith and conceding to the Orthodox, during WWII in Ukraine. Who will be first in line to say it was in vain? Who will be the first in line to say that my ancestors were misled to believe that martyrdom was the wiser choice, than renouncing their Faith and becoming Orthodox?
‘Faithful’ Uniates are often dry martyrs to this day. As for me, I’m just a little sheep, trying to stay in the fold and not get lost anymore… but every time I did, the good shepherd found me and brought me back safely.
Slava Icycy Xpucty!
Praise be to God!
A
Aramis
Guest
There are specific differences between particular churches within any given Rite.
The Byzantine Rite churches, whether Orthodox or Catholic, shares a Theological Tradtion, not of need identical Theology; each shares a Liturgical Tradition, not identical liturgies; each shares the same Ecclesiastical Tradtion, but not the same ecclesiastical structure.
That the theological body of the UGCC and the Ukrainian Orthodox are different does not negate that their theological Tradition is the same, that is, their general approach to theology and noted theologians are often shared.
The question of whether the slavics constitute a separate rite from the proper byzantine-Constantinoplean is one best left elsewhere; the church recognizes few Rites; per canon law: Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan. (names/spellings from CCEO Canon 28 §2)
Some of these are best known under other names:
Constantinopolitan = Byzantine
Chaldean = Syriac
Some of the Sui Iuris churches are sufficiently different that it is commonly treated as a different Rite, even tho’ they are, per canon law, not such. The difference between the East and West Syriac traditions, for example, and the oddity known as the Maronite, three syriac sub-rites, but all considered to be of the Syrian Rite.
The shared history, and in the syriac example, the separations of their histories, make the issues quite complex.
The Byzantine Rite, in its myriad churches, is strongly represented with several (ISTR, 8 different ones) Catholic and 20+ Orthodox Particular Churches with self jurisdictions (Sui Iuris for Catholic, and either Autocephalous or Autonomous for Orthodox), the syriac have at least 4 Catholic jurisdictions: Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Maronite.
The Byzantine Rite churches, whether Orthodox or Catholic, shares a Theological Tradtion, not of need identical Theology; each shares a Liturgical Tradition, not identical liturgies; each shares the same Ecclesiastical Tradtion, but not the same ecclesiastical structure.
That the theological body of the UGCC and the Ukrainian Orthodox are different does not negate that their theological Tradition is the same, that is, their general approach to theology and noted theologians are often shared.
The question of whether the slavics constitute a separate rite from the proper byzantine-Constantinoplean is one best left elsewhere; the church recognizes few Rites; per canon law: Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan. (names/spellings from CCEO Canon 28 §2)
Some of these are best known under other names:
Constantinopolitan = Byzantine
Chaldean = Syriac
Some of the Sui Iuris churches are sufficiently different that it is commonly treated as a different Rite, even tho’ they are, per canon law, not such. The difference between the East and West Syriac traditions, for example, and the oddity known as the Maronite, three syriac sub-rites, but all considered to be of the Syrian Rite.
The shared history, and in the syriac example, the separations of their histories, make the issues quite complex.
The Byzantine Rite, in its myriad churches, is strongly represented with several (ISTR, 8 different ones) Catholic and 20+ Orthodox Particular Churches with self jurisdictions (Sui Iuris for Catholic, and either Autocephalous or Autonomous for Orthodox), the syriac have at least 4 Catholic jurisdictions: Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Maronite.
H
Hesychios
Guest
** “Our patriarchate can be, within our unfortunately divided Kyivan Church, a very strong ecumenical instrument that would be leading towards the consciousness of the entire Church, for unity”**
{excerpt or interest}
AA: Let’s speak of the international dialogue about the Greek Catholic Church. In Balamand (1993) the joint Catholic-Orthodox commission – to which the Greek Catholic Church was not called - on the one side has condemned Uniatism understood as a form of proselytism and on the other side has recognized the existence of the Greek Catholic Church as a church. What is your position concerning this resolution and how do you see the future today, because the international discussion was interrupted in Baltimore in 2000?
LH: If we take Uniatism in this classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we as well do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time. And it was also the theological understanding of the Latin Church after the Council of Trent.
{and}
AA: But the Orthodox are saying that you were latinized in the 18 th and 19 th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?
LH: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally,** I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage.** We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it.
Interesting comments (emphasis mine), considering some things I have been reading on this thread. Cardinal Lubomyr has more things to say, you may read the entire article here…
Pax,*
Michael*
{excerpt or interest}
AA: Let’s speak of the international dialogue about the Greek Catholic Church. In Balamand (1993) the joint Catholic-Orthodox commission – to which the Greek Catholic Church was not called - on the one side has condemned Uniatism understood as a form of proselytism and on the other side has recognized the existence of the Greek Catholic Church as a church. What is your position concerning this resolution and how do you see the future today, because the international discussion was interrupted in Baltimore in 2000?
LH: If we take Uniatism in this classical way of trying to re-establish unity, we as well do not accept it. We were tricked into it. It was not the intention of our bishops at the end of the 16th century. But this was the political situation within the Polish kingdom of that time. And it was also the theological understanding of the Latin Church after the Council of Trent.
{and}
AA: But the Orthodox are saying that you were latinized in the 18 th and 19 th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?
LH: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally,** I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage.** We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it.
Interesting comments (emphasis mine), considering some things I have been reading on this thread. Cardinal Lubomyr has more things to say, you may read the entire article here…
Pax,*
Michael*
D
Daisiegirl
Guest
Metropolitan Sheptytsky was a true martyr for the Catholic Faith, never compromising It, especially when he was imprisoned in Siberia for years and years… I’m sure St. Josaphat was at his side on many occassions.
Someone of my generation never minded the Latinization, or even recognized it as such, in my Ukrainian Catholic parish~ in fact, I found myself going to the LTM, to find it there, after it was slowly ‘purged’ in my church ~ along with the statues and crucifixes that I found one day at the curb on trash day and salvaged them… they were along side the consecrated altar that was smashed and replaced by our new, young pastor…
The Balamand Statement is a slap in the face to any Faithful Ukrainian Catholic. Unfortunately, most Ukrainians have probably never read it, let alone heard about it.
Someone of my generation never minded the Latinization, or even recognized it as such, in my Ukrainian Catholic parish~ in fact, I found myself going to the LTM, to find it there, after it was slowly ‘purged’ in my church ~ along with the statues and crucifixes that I found one day at the curb on trash day and salvaged them… they were along side the consecrated altar that was smashed and replaced by our new, young pastor…
The Balamand Statement is a slap in the face to any Faithful Ukrainian Catholic. Unfortunately, most Ukrainians have probably never read it, let alone heard about it.
W
Woodstock
Guest
What do you think of Ukrainian Catholic parishes like this one, which boldly proclaim the Eastern faith?
http://www.saintelias.com/
If you want statues, pews, purgatory, and the filioque, why go to an Eastern Catholic Church? Without its own theology and spirituality, it becomes a costume party for Roman Catholics who like pretty things. Why would saints and martyrs live and die for some quaint customs? There must be more that the Eastern Catholic Churches have to share with the world.
W
wannabee
Guest
to Daisiegirl
I ,a member of the UGCC , can say no more that John Paul II said many many times we should return to our roots - and that is what we are doing - the Filioque was a late addition - added from one side only. It has now been removed.
There is nothing wrong with things like Stations of the Cross , group recitation of the Rosary - but they are not our tradition - they are fine as personal devotions.
Just look at the website of St Elias in Brampton - not that is one very good example of a UGCC Church that is staying with tradition and it’s proud to be doing so
Please do not be so intolerant.
I ,a member of the UGCC , can say no more that John Paul II said many many times we should return to our roots - and that is what we are doing - the Filioque was a late addition - added from one side only. It has now been removed.
There is nothing wrong with things like Stations of the Cross , group recitation of the Rosary - but they are not our tradition - they are fine as personal devotions.
Just look at the website of St Elias in Brampton - not that is one very good example of a UGCC Church that is staying with tradition and it’s proud to be doing so
Please do not be so intolerant.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
It is still to be ascended to.
They are also tradtition. Our practices become our tradtions. All of them, not just the ones from antiquity and they are subject to change as the ship changes course.
I would say beware of pride as it breeds intolerance.
Peace.
W
wannabee
Guest
Frankly I’m wondering just what is the Church that Daisiegirl attends.
Could it be one that is served by the Society of St Josaphat ?
Could it be one that is served by the Society of St Josaphat ?
- Status