www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dr. Carroll and Terminology

Well, it appears the campaign to get Dr. Carroll to change his tune regarding the use of "rites" vs. "Church" has worked. This was on his History forum on EWTN this morning:
Edward, deacon and sinner

Glory to God!

Thanks to all who wrote Mr Donovan.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

I'd like to thank all those who wrote to EWTN or to Dr. Carroll's forum as well. Nice!

Dr Carroll writes:

[I will henceforth use the phrase "sister churches" where I had formerly used "rites."]

Since we Orthodox are also referred to as a sister church, I wonder how Rome suggests you distinguish us from the Easter Catholics. Are we now to be referred once again as the 'wayward sister'?

Robert,


Don't complain! "Wayward sister" certainly trumps "oriental barbarians."


Vasili

I'm happy that you all achieved what you wanted but the Catholic Catechism still states:

1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religous orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean rites. "In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred council declares the Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."

This will probably still cause confusion among the average person in the future and may be a little harder to have changed (I would'nt even know where to begin).

Take care and good luck,
Matt

Dear Matt,

I can understand where the confusion may arise from, and even how the language of the paragraph you cite from the Catechism may not prevent that confusion. But the paragraph you mention is only one (the last, I think) in it's own section, which I will quote below (be patient with me):

ARTICLE 2
LITURGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE UNITY OF THE MYSTERY

Liturgical traditions and the catholicity of the Church

1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.

1201 The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition. The history of the blossoming and development of these rites witnesses to a remarkable complementarity. When the Churches lived their respective liturgical traditions in the communion of the faith and the sacraments of the faith, they enriched one another and grew in fidelity to Tradition and to the common mission of the whole Church.66

1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church's mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the "deposit of faith,"67 in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion, in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. The Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures.68

1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In "faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."69

In para. 1200, in the very first sentence, we read the phrase "Churches of God". In a few other places, the Catechism makes this distinction between Church and rite. Even in its basic meaning, the words differ. A rite is a certain action to be performed; for example, we have rites of passage as we grow up (girls have "sweet sixteen" celebrations upon reaching that age). But Church comes from the Greek word ekklesia, which I believe means "gathering". The Church in its essence is a gathering, a calling, a convocation of people together, united in a common faith, in our cases, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, under a bishop or bishops with the apostolic succession. "Rite" is only a piece of the pie.

For instance, if I'm not mistaken you're a Latin Catholic. Well, you've grown up in a culture which, unless you're the fruit of Western missionary work in Asia or Africa, is thoroughly Western. Western cultures differ from those of the East. You have a different perspective on things, a different method of doing a whole host of things. One way this is manifested is in the realm of liturgy, rite, if you will. The Latin rite developed out of the culture and sensibilities of Western peoples, first in Rome, the city of glorious Saints Peter and Paul, and then as time went along and as the Latin rite developed steam, throughout the Patriarchate of Rome.

I for my part am not a Latin Christian, but a Syrian Christian from India, the mission ground of the glorious apostle Saint Thomas. I take great pride in telling people who are surprised to hear of Indian Christians that through my family line, I can trace a direct ancestor who was baptised by the Apostle; the baptismal waters were poured on my ancestor by one who touched the wounds of the Risen One, and proclaimed His Divinity. It's an awesome thought. My culture, my sensibilities, my perspective is different from that of the West. It's Indian, it's also (through various historical occurences) Syrian. And that got translated also into our expressions of the Faith. We celebrated the same holy mysteries that were celebrated in Rome, in Antioch, in Alexandria, in Jerusalem, and wherever else there were to be found Christians. But our way of doing things differed from that of the other places. The same could be said of our Byzantine brothers and sisters, whose guest on this forum I'm honoured to be; they have inherited the faith from their ancestors, as it was passed on to them through their own culture, sensibilities, etc.

All these different ways of doing things differ from each other. But they aim at the same thing. The Latin ritual for baptism is different from the Syrian, and both of these differ from the Byzantine. But though they differ in significant ways, they are one and the same mystery of Baptism. The average Roman Mass on Sunday will begin with an entrance procession while a choir sings a hymn. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy will begin on the same day with a priest intoning a prayer that starts "Blessed is the Kingdom", and then the people will pray a litany (if I'm not mistaken). The Syrian Holy Qurbana which I attend will begin with the priest intoning the verse "Mariam deelethoq" followed by the people singing one of the most beautiful prayers in the Liturgy, the antiphon of Mar Severios, the Patriarch of Antioch. But either way you celebrate it, it's still the one sacrifice of Christ, celebrated by particular communities which developed their own rituals.

Our different rites are our expressions of the same faith, but developed within our particular churches, which were in turn influenced by the cultures they found themselves in. Nevertheless, we are all called together by God to this one faith, to preach it as we have received it, and to pass it on to future generations as we have received it. And it is this calling of people that is the gathering, the ekklesia, the Church. In the West, most people belong to the Roman Church. These are people of similar culture, sensibility, perspective, called to live and spread their faith, of which liturgy (rite) is a part. But this isn't the only particular church out there. In India there are two other particular churches, in the Middle East, three or four, in Eastern Europe and surrounding areas still others. They differ in ritual, liturgy, culture, etc. from each other, but each is called to spread the faith. They are indeed churches, gatherings, but celebrate the one faith differently from each other.

I guess the simplest way to say it all is that when you deal with "Church" you deal with people; when you deal with "rite" you deal with how people celebrate something together. A Church isn't defined by whether its priest wears a chasuble or a phelonion or a phaino at the Sunday Liturgy. A Church is about people, and the different Churches--Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Maronite, Assyrian (Chaldean), Armenian, etc.--are about peoples, cultures. Rituals, vestments, icons, incense, prayers, and liturgical celebrations are expressions of the people. To call the various Eastern Churches "rites" is in essence to acknowledge what we do, but to deny who we are.

Maybe the above was confusing. I have a way of not getting to the heart of the matter, but dwelling on this or that. If it wasn't clear, or much worse, if I'm in error regarding something, I'm sure I can depend on my brothers and sisters here to correct and clarify what I've said. My prayers are with you and with all during this season of the Great Fast. Pray for my weak self in your kindness.

Dear Servant of God, Matt

Glory to Jesus Christ !

Don't confuse the word "Rite" with an individually governed "sui juris" church. A "rite" is a "liturgical way of life". The Byzantine liturgical way of life (rite) can be found in at least 10 individually goverened "sui juris" churches. The Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romainian, Russian, etc. Catholic churches are all "Byzantine Catholic Churches". They all practice the Byzantine liturgical way of life (rite), but they are all independantly goverened "sui juris" churches.

There are other Eastern Catholic churches that follow another liturgical way of life (rite) as mentioned in the CCC paragraph that you quoted from.

Joe Prokopchak
"Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O' Savior, save us"


[This message has been edited by Joe Prokopchak (edited 03-10-2001).]

Hi Joe,

I am not confusing "rite" or "liturgical tradition with "Church". The Catholic Church teaches us that we are not to worship by the Word Of God alone but also by tradition. This is one of the ways which separates us from the other faiths. I just wanted to point out how the wording in the Catechism can confuse some of us. I also want to point out that many of us (particularly those who practice the Latin Rite) don't mean any harm by our wording. One can probably compare it to the mispronounciation of ones name. However it may be wrong, it is not intentionally done. If it is intentionally done than I can certainly understand the disapointment which can occur. Since most Catholics (at least in the U.S) are of the Latin rite, I'm sure you have and will continue to encounter this mistake. Please have patience with us.

Mor Ephrem, thanks for the insight. I personally love hearing about the different liturgical traditions and your story is particularly nice. Our Churches have much to offer each other. As I can understand how the wording can insult you, I hope you can understand how it is not done intentionally. I believe that most people do not even know the difference.


Matt

Dear Matt,

I never took it as an insult that most people are confused by the terminology. What I do find insulting is those who, when corrected, still refuse to comply, and those who think that ordinary people are either not interested or not capable of understanding. I guess I just have more faith in people. God bless you, friend.

Mor Ephrem,

Wow, what a beautiful statement you made here!

Please give us more insight about your Church of India. I hear that the Liturgy of St. Thomas is very glorious and very solemn! There's so much we don't know about other Eastern Catholic Churches, particularly under Church of Alexandria (Coptics, etc.) and the true Church of Antioch (Syrian, etc.) I understand that the Church of Antioch kind of lost it's true identity and is more similar to the Church of Constantinople (Byzantine).

Anyway, please educate us more and enlighten us more! Thanks.

spdundas

Matt,

The Catechism quotation isn�t wrong; it�s incomplete. It doesn�t explain that the Church it refers to (the Universal or Catholic Church, not the Roman Church) is made of Churches (the word �Church� does double duty), including the Roman.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Serge,

Thanks for your comment, but how does it pertain to mine? Also, I am not in the habit of taking someones word over what is written in the Catechism, I hope you understand. If I did, I wouldn't be a very faithful Catholic would I?

Remember that in previous statements under this topic I just pointed out that the confusion can take place because of the wording in the Catechism. I don't claim to be an authority. I am just a regular guy who became interested in this topic.

Matt

Glad to hear it, Father Deacon. I trust now that this matter will end. Gloating or continued snide comments from some quarters (not mentioning names) is really uncalled for. Dr. Carroll learned something, good. Let the matter rest and let's move on.

Pax Christi,
John

Dear Spdundas,

I'll be very happy to answer any questions you have about our Church, but it's such a broad area that it's probably better if I deal with specific questions. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just better with specifics, rather than the big picture.

With regard to our Liturgy, we don't have a Liturgy of Saint Thomas. After Saint Thomas ordained bishops and priests in India (not a direct ancestor, but an uncle somewhere early in the line...close enough for me ), we received a form of the Liturgy he used, and that can be traced back to Jerusalem. And that, with certain cultural adaptations, was our Liturgy till the Assyrian Liturgy was given to us. This was what we all used until the Portuguese came. They imposed Catholicism on the people, who, though under the Assyrian Patriarchate, never really accepted Nestorianism formally since India was quite cut off from the rest of the Church. There are some who say that the Church in India was never in schism because we were too far away from all the action. The Portuguese took away the Assyrian Liturgy, and imposed first the Tridentine Mass, in a Syriac translation, and then after a while just made it all complete and ordered the use of Latin, and we were under the Pope. Many stayed this way, but some gathered together and appealed to the Patriarch of Antioch, who accepted us into the Orthodox Church.

We received then the Liturgy of Saint James, which is one of the most beautiful. It's very Jewish, in a sense. The Liturgy of Antioch, I've heard, was that of Jerusalem, and that of Jerusalem was that of the Apostles. Of course it developed over time, but never lost the basic structure. It's very solemn, but joyous as well. There aren't as many silently prayed parts as there are in other Liturgies, the silent parts are private prayers of the priest. Otherwise, the congregation hears everything. There's much to say about the Liturgy, I don't know where to start, but if you have any questions, I'd be glad to try and answer them.

As for the question about the true identity of the Church of Antioch, I don't know what you're referring to. What I've heard and read is that the Syrian Liturgy influenced others in the East, including the Byzantine. Maybe what I read was wrong, maybe it was right, I don't know. I'd like to read something about this because matters liturgical are of particular interest to me. What I do know is that the Byzantine and Syrian Liturgies have many similarities.

Once again, if you have any questions, I hope I'll be able to answer them. I look forward to hearing from you again.