Ok, yeah I thought of this, and it’s good to know that each sui iurus Church has its own particular canon law in addition to the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches. That makes sense.
What he said, although the Divine Liturgy and temples are incredibly beautiful. Sublime, even.
)[thread=297197]Will the Real St. Cyprian Please Stand Up?[/thread]
The terminology change was imposed in the Post-conciliar documents of V II, as a correction of an abuse. The term is still used inappropriately for most of the various Roman Church Usages (and there are a bunch).
The separate hierarchies are the primary thing. Each came into union as a corporate body (usually a chunk of a larger parent, tho’ in some cases, the chunk was the non-returning group). Their union was to Peter’s Heir and Throne, not to the local Roman hierarchs. The differences in Rite, Ritual, Tradition, Theology, and Praxis, and the valuation of these as worthy of retention in union, means that insulation from the whims of the Roman church is essential; retaining their autonomy protects them from random Latinizations… usually.
V II post conciliar documents, the CCEO, and several other documents define the correct terms to use, and the CCEO says that it abrogates anything which contradicts it, save treaties and the CIC. Since the terms are defined in Canon Law (CCEO), any prior definitions are abrogated, save those in treaties.Thirdly, you stated that the Catholic Church has advised its members not to refer to the eastern “churches” in union with Rome as “rites.” Could you point me to the document which states that so I could read it for myself, and also help me understand it with a brief explanation of your own as to why the Catholic Church felt the need to say that? Also, I’m curious as to when the document was released. If it was relatively recently, then I probably did just miss it.
That does help; I understand the terminology and the reasons behind it better now. Thank you!Firstly: The term “rite” is fine, but only in its appropriate context. For example the Melkite Church is not the “Melkite Rite”, but rather it is the Melkite Church which uses the Byzantine Rite.
One of the key reasons for this distinction, and for insisting that the Eastern Churches not be called the “Eastern Rites”, is that a Rite doesn’t make for a distinct hierarchy, but a Church does. For example, the Ukrainians and the Melkites have distinct hierarchies, as in they don’t share priests and bishops, and have their own Synods and such, even though they share the same Rite. On the other hand, you can have more than one Rite within a single Church, as is the case with the Latin Church which has a number of Rites but only one hierarchy.
As for why your Latin sources wouldn’t have embraced this terminology, I would imagine it’s just from ignorance or habit in most cases. This is the terminology of the Vatican and of Canon Law, so any other uses are merely mistakes.
Secondly: I’m not sure I understand this question. There’s no threat to unity by speaking of different Rites in the Church; heck, there’s no threat to unity by speaking of different Rites and theologies within just the Latin Church (the Dominican Rite and theology versus Franciscan theology or the Mozarabic Rite, for example). The term Church can be used for the entire Catholic Communion, and for particular Church hierarchies within it, such as the Latin and the Melkite.
Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the objection to the use of the term “Rite” in an inappropriate context to mean a general rejection of the term all together? Rite is a fine term, and is used all the time throughout the Catholic Church, it just has a very specific meaning and should be used appropriately.
Thirdly: I personally don’t know of any official document addressing this, I only know of how official documents refer to the Eastern Churches, and that’s as Churches and not Rites. The term Rite is defined by Canon Law, and can be found here in the Eastern Code of Canons and the definition of Church is found here. As you can see from the definitions, they are distinct terms with specific meanings, and not interchangeable.
Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!
Perhaps you can qualify this. What about the Orthodox expression of the Faith do you find sublime, and how is that sublimity absent in the Latin Church?
The mainstream of the Catholic Church, by embracing the Novus Ordo Mass and the logical consequences thereunto pertaining, has indeed become more Protestant in appearance. However, Catholics who practice traditional Catholicism have lost nothing of the sublime and, I would encourage you to learn about the traditional Catholic Faith before embracing the Eastern Schism.
Aren’t the groups you mentioned schismatic? If so, what use is one schism for another?
No.
samcarter14;4619828:
You are correct. I type too quickly sometimes.
The FSSP and the ICRSS are both in full communion with the See of Rome.
Thanks!
