www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Where do Roman Documents first begin calling the Eastern Churches, "Churches?"

I am a "bi ritual" priest. I serve a very small community of Byzantines. Brother priests of the Latin Church insist on calling the Eastern Catholic Churches "Rites." I have repeatedly explained that a "rite" is a way of worshiping and liturgical practice and that is all the term means (i.e.,Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Anglican Use etc.) A Church has it's own hierarchs, Canons and spiritual life as well as it's own liturgy. Part of this is a problem which some seem to have is shown when the question, "Isn't the Roman Rite good enough for you?" is asked. Bishops regularly negate the Eastern Churches by refering to them as "rites" and equating them to the liturgy according to the Tridentine Rite. Can anyone tell me which Roman document begins to use the term "church" and explains why the Eastern Churches are just that, Churches? Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Batushka (edited 06-02-2000).]

I'd have to dig a bit to see where the Roman Church actually started to refer to us as "Churches" rather than "rites" but the Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Churches is a start (although some of the English translations call it the "Decree on the Eastern Rites", which doesn't help).

For something more modern (as proof text) you can refer to the document "Eastern Catholics in the United States of America" published by the NCCB. An on-line version can be found at http://www.cin.org/east/eastcathamer.html .

The usage of the term "Byzantine Rite" will never be replaced by "Byzantine Church" until we ourselves truly understand that we are a full and complete Church and not just Roman Catholics with a funny Mass.

Father,

Christ is Ascended!

God bless you for your service to the Byzantine Catholic Church! I'm sure that are something of a bridge for many of your brother priests and the Eastern tradition.

Perhaps a few others may cross over as well...at least in their hearts!

I would recommend the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches. Also, the first paragraph - actually the first sentence! - of the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches from Vatican II makes such a distinction clear.

Some Roman Catholic friends of mine have had more trouble with the use of the phrase "autonomous ritual churches", since they feel that it smacks of too much independence from Rome. (Is that such a bad thing in certain matters? - not faith, of course - but at least administratively? Seems to be the direction JPII is trying to take things...)

Pax,

Gordo, sfo

Batushka,

There is a book called "The Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches."
http://www.clsa.org/publications/code_of_eastern_churches.html

Even the title refers to 'churches' and not rites.

The above article mentioned by Moose states:

"We have been accustomed to speaking of the Latin (Roman or Western) Rite or the Eastern Rites to designate these different Churches. However, the Church's contemporary legislation as contained in the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches makes it clear that we ought to speak, not of rites, but of Churches."


Elias




[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 06-07-2000).]

Rite vs. Church?

Ahhh, the subtlety and nuance of words and language. Bear with me on this one... I'll try to make this as clear as I can. Actually, this is more of a question for discussion than anything.

I agree with Moose's statement about us BC's using correct terminology (God knows, sometimes we are our own worst enemy). We must educate ourselves and others about the differences in using the words "Church" and "rite." Maybe we need to start with "Mass" and "Divine Liturgy." ;>

But for consideration is that there has been an attempt by some priests/parishes to identify their church (such as on a sign or website) as "St. XYZ Catholic Church" and underneath it will say "Byzantine Rite." Okay, this makes perfect sense to me and in someways kinda points out (especially to the RC's) that we are "Catholic" too. We just follow the Byzantine Rite in our worship, etc. To me, there 's almost an implied "openess" in this phrasing.

However, based on some posts on this and other threads, I am wondering now if this is wise. Does this reinforce the idea by some of our people as well as many non-BC's to see our Church (cap "C") as just a variation of the Roman Church, thereby turning us into a lower case "c"? This view of the Byzantine Church was once described tongue in cheek by Dr. John as, "we are just Romans with a cabaret license." But in reality, that's sometimes how our some of our folks and others view us... or we are quaint, ethnic, old-fashioned, anachronous, the way the Church (read: Roman) used to be before Vatican II.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have ALL Catholic Churches identify themselves in the above manner: "St. ABC Catholic Church - Roman Rite." Look in the phone book. Very few RC parishes describe themselves that way. "Catholic" equals "Roman."

Maybe we need to go back to describing our churches as St. OPQ Byzantine Catholic Church. But to me that seems to throw up the invisible wall... but that's just me.

I realize that in the grand scheme of the cosmos that this may be a minor issue. After all they will know us by our love for one another.

Anyway, I've rambled enough... interested in anybody else's thoughts about how we should "label" ourselves.


[This message has been edited by rick neimiller (edited 06-08-2000).]

Christ is ascended!

Calling a church �St XYZ Catholic Church (Byzantine Rite)� is shooting yourselves in the foot.

Batushka (Father, bless) is right to be bothered by the continued reference to your Churches as �rites�. The assumption that Roman equals universal (rather than the truth, Roman is a subset of universal) causes the Orthodox sectarian reaction �Oh, yeah? Well, *Byzantine* is universal and you�re all a bunch of heretics! Take THAT!� and understandably perpetuates the Schism. It is the one real reason for its continuance today.

>we are quaint, ethnic, old-fashioned, anachronous, the way the Church (read: Roman) used to be before Vatican II.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

http://oldworldrus.com

Rick,

Some Roman Catholic communities label themselves as "St. XYZ: A Catholic Community." No ROMAN in their title at all.

Elias

>Some Roman Catholic communities label themselves as "St. XYZ: A Catholic Community." No ROMAN in their title at all.

That�s too bad � it sounds like they automatically assume �Catholic equals Roman, period�. A mindset found left and right.

http://oldworldrus.com