www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Differences between Byzantine and Roman Catholics

Thanks Rusnak. That brings me to another question. If a Roman Catholic decides to become a Byzantine Catholic, does that person need to go through some kind of ritual or ceremony? In giving some thought to this I guess it's making some sense, but at the same time it's confusing. I don't know if there are families who might practice both Roman and Byzantine Catholicism. The child under seven would be allowed to take communion in the Byzantine Church, but not the Roman Church. I know that it would be confusing for a child if his/her family would practice both.

Also, do you by any chance know which Catholic Rite is the first one? Did they all start about the same time but in different countries. I do know that the Eastern and Greek Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian calendar as the Roman Church uses.

Thanks for your input.

Curiousity.

Thanks Rusnak.

You�re welcome!

That brings me to another question. If a Roman Catholic decides to become a Byzantine Catholic, does that person need to go through some kind of ritual or ceremony?

No, he or she doesn�t need to. In some cases the person simply joins a Byzantine church; sometimes the pastor offers to sign you up and that�s that. Canonically in the Vatican�s eyes you may still be Roman but if the local Byzantine church is your spiritual home and you pray and think Byzantine, that�s what you in fact are. (That seems to be a near consensus here.) If you want to formalize this (a good idea if you want to get married and/or ordained and/or raise kids in your new Church) you can ask for a permanent canonical change of Churches, granted by your Roman and Byzantine bishops.

Personally I think since the Byzantine Churches are supposed to be exactly like the Orthodox (only not in schism), joining one should be about as demanding as joining one of the Orthodox ones, complete with instruction (since the Byzantines do have different doctrines, using Orthodox theology, but the same dogma, capital-T Tradition, as Roman Catholics � a good distinction to keep in mind). I�ve been told some Byzantines receive former Romans with an anointing but that isn�t the same as chrismation, which many Orthodox use to receive former Catholics.

In giving some thought to this I guess it's making some sense, but at the same time it's confusing.

Sure it is! For a lot of Catholics, the notion that the Catholic Church is really a family of Churches, not just the Roman one with different �rites�, takes some getting used to.

I don't know if there are families who might practice both Roman and Byzantine Catholicism.

I�m sure there are. I haven�t met any, except those whose grown children have gone Roman.

The child under seven would be allowed to take communion in the Byzantine Church, but not the Roman Church. I know that it would be confusing for a child if his/her family would practice both.

Good point. Yes, it would be. Which is why I say it�s a bad idea to try to practice both at the same time. One or the other must be more than 50% of your religious practice for emotional and spiritual health.

Also, do you by any chance know which Catholic Rite is the first one?

No, sorry. I�m guessing one of the Syrian ones or the Liturgy of St James in the Byzantine Rite is the oldest existing one. Probably a Syrian one. The Roman and Byzantine rites are both largely medieval developments based indirectly on ancient models, though SS. John Chrysostom and Basil actually wrote the Eucharistic prayers credited to them. And the Roman Canon (consecration � the heart of the Roman Mass) is older than either of those!

Serge

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

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 04-13-2001).]

Good question: which is the oldest? I think there used to be a Jerusalemite rite, now extinct, that was the ritual of the Church of Jerusalem. That would probably be the oldest, although not currently used. The Maronite consecration is done in Aramaic, in the exact language and words of Christ at the Last Supper. That could be considered the oldest, too. Or maybe the rite used by the Ethiopian Catholics? Weren' their liturgies written by St. Mark?

"I don't know if there are families who might practice both Roman and Byzantine Catholicism.

I�m sure there are. I haven�t met any, except those whose grown children have gone Roman."

I know of one such family. When I was Melkite they would attend the Melkite and Roman Churches -- sometimes alternating weeks, sometimes a few weeks in succession. In all, it seemed to work pretty well, although there were/are some glitches relating to the communication of the child in the Roman Church (ie, it generally doesn't happen), and there is a tendency to refer to Church X as "his/her church". In theory, I agree that this seems like a difficult long-term plan -- but in the one case I know it does seem to work relatively well.

Brendan

Dear Entomos,
Christos Anesti!

You raise excellent liturgical points!

The practice of using the original Greek or Aramaic for the Consecration during the Divine Liturgy is very ancient.

The Fathers of the Desert would often leave the original Greek wording for fear of changing anything in their translation. So this practice may or may not point to the age of a given liturgy.

Some have argued that the Roman Liturgy is based on that of St Gregory of Rome and has ties to the ancient forms used close to the times of St Peter.

The Jerusalemite Rite was closely and originally linked to the Temple, of course, and the Apostles originally heard the Liturgy of the Word in the Temple itself.

The Church of Jerusalem, before AD 70, was so related to Judaism (as the Ethiopian Church today is) that the Jewish leaders thought that the Church's Bishop, James, was among the most observant of Jews. This is why they asked him to stand on a high point on the Temple itself to criticize the Christians, which of course he would not.

However this may be, it appears almost certain that liturgical development began with longer Liturgies that were shortened over time (e.g. St James - St Basil - St Chrysostomos).

The thinking that I heard to justify the shortened Mass of the Novus Ordo was that the later liturgies contained unnecessary accretions that needed to be expunged.

While this may have defined liturgical reality in the Middle Ages, this was certainly not the case in the Early Church.

I also think the Byzantine tradition should bring back, in a larger way, the Liturgy of St James and also that of St Mark in Egypt, both of which formerly belonged to our patrimony.

All our liturgies have elements of the ancient liturgies of the Church.

Perhaps the most pressing issue of all is the definition of rules to go by in liturgical development today.

The way I see it, anyway . . .

God bless,

Alex

Christos voskrese!

>>>However this may be, it appears almost certain that liturgical development began with longer Liturgies that were shortened over time (e.g. St
James - St Basil - St Chrysostomos).<<<

This is the traditional explanation, but Schultz in his book, "The Byzantine Liturgy" takes issue with it, noting that the Byzantine rite is a combination of several different rites (or, as Fr. Taft likes to say, "All the ancient liturgies are mongrels"), with the Anaphora of Basil reaching back to Cappodocian models, and that of Chrysostom to Antiochean models. So that, rather than the latter being a redaction of the former, they have different roots altogether, though eventually, all go back to the ur-liturgy of Jerusalem.

Within the Byzantine Church, it would seem that the Liturgy of Basil was the common Sunday cathedral service from the 4th through the 9th centuries, with Chrysostom gaining popularity as the weekday form. After the 9th century, Chrysostom increasingly displaces Basil, so that today we use his liturgy only ten times a year.

Overall, the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan rite was shaped by two great influences: the rite of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia, which in its turn was very much influenced by the stational nature of the Byzantine liturgy and the imperial ceremonial of the Byzantine court; and, from the 13th century onward, by the monastic liturgical practices of two monasteries--the Monastery of St. John in the Studios, and the Monastery of St. Sabbas in Jerusalem. As Byzantium diminished through the Middle Ages, the liturgy of its Church turned inward, and many of the practices of the Great Church, though retained, remained only in vestigial form. The great processions, for instance, instead of proceeding throughout the city and into the church, simply went from the sanctuary to the nave and back again. But all the symbols were richly endowed with mystagogical significance, and so, by the end of the 13th century, the Byzantine Liturgy had become largely fixed in its present form, and much more of an integrated, holistic liturgical drama than the liturgy of any other Tradition. Thereafter, inate conservatism and the need to hold onto what was received in the face of Moslem, Latin, and (last of all, Communist) domination ensured that subsequent changes would be relatively minor, accommodations to local conditions.

Dear Entomos,
I think the oldest Eucharistic Prayer is Cannon II of the Roman Missal based upon the prayer used by Hyppolitus of Rome around 250 AD.

Dear Brendan,
Here is an interesting one which I am sure that you are aware of: "Communion of the Precious Blood through a Liturgical Spoon."
Such was the practice at one time in the Latin Church. A golden spoon with two handles on each side.

Stephanos

Welcome to the Catholic Faith!
Stephanos

That brings me to another question. If a Roman Catholic decides to become a Byzantine Catholic, does that person need to go through some kind of ritual or ceremony? In giving some thought to this I guess it's making some sense, but at the same time it's confusing. I don't know if there are families who might practice both Roman and Byzantine Catholicism. The child under seven would be allowed to take communion in the Byzantine Church, but not the Roman Church. I know that it would be confusing for a child if his/her family would practice both.

Also, do you by any chance know which Catholic Rite is the first one? Did they all start about the same time but in different countries. I do know that the Eastern and Greek Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian calendar as the Roman Church uses.

Thanks for your input.

Curiousity.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Dear Curiousity,

A person of the Latine Church (According to its Canon Law can change Churches at the time of marriage to an Eastern Catholic simply by intent.

Stephanos

Dear Stuart,

Xpuctoc Bockpece!

I don't disagree with you, Stuart, or with Schultz. As a matter of fact, I did say that our liturgies have elements in them of the ancient liturgies etc.

When I went to a Catholic high school, my Byzantine Rite Liturgy was actually ridiculed by some there who asked me why my Church didn't "go back to the original short liturgies?"

So my point is simply that the original liturgies of the Church were anything by short. I used our Liturgies as merely an example to illustrate the point and it may not have been a very good illustration.

By the way, what do you yourself think of the Liturgy of St James of Jerusalem? Should it be used more frequently etc.?

A blessed Bright Week, O Learned One!

Alex

>>>I think the oldest Eucharistic Prayer is Cannon II of the Roman Missal based upon the prayer used by Hyppolitus of Rome around 250 AD<<<

Dear Stephanos,

Christ is risen, indeed!

While EP-III is based upon the prayer of Hippolytus, it is not precisely the same prayer. Moreover, it is not clear whether Hippolytus, in the "Apostolic Tradition", was desribing the actual useage of the Church of Rome ca. 250, or whether he was describing some sort of liturgical ideal. In any case, it is pretty clear that the anaphorae in all the Churches had not yet taken on a fixed form; bishops extemporized a great deal, though slowly some prayers were starting to be used as models. The oldest anaphora in continuous use is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, used by the Church of the East. It is most significant because it does not have any sort of Institution Narrative ("Take, eat. . ."), and only the most general sort of epiclesis (in which the Spirit is invoked over both the people and the gifts together. This is a very primitive form, indicative of great antiquity. Since the Church of the East existed in territory occupied by the Parthians, and then the Persians, and had little contact with the Roman Empire, it is pretty clear that this anaphora predates the Constantinian settlement, and may date back to the middle of the third century. In contrast to EP-III of the reformed Roman rite, this is an authentic anaphora whose historical use has remained unbroken over the course of the centuries.

The Roman Canon of the ancient Roman rite began taking form in the late 4th century, and basic elements of the prayer may have been set down as much as a century earlier. The Christological focus of the Canon, and its lack of any sort of explicit epiclesis, indicates that it was composed prior to the pneumatological controversies that engaged the attention of the Cappodocian Fathers in the last quarter of the 4th century.

The Coptic Liturgy of St. Mark, and the Jerusalemite Liturgy of St. James may have origins equally old, but both have undergone considerable amendation over the centuries. And, as I noted earlier, the Byzantine Anaphorae of Basil and Chrysostom probably date to the late 4th century, but the rite as a whole has undergone considerable evolution, reaching its current form only in the 13th century.

Dear Curiosity,

There are a couple of ways a person can change his rite. This is based on my understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I'm no authority, so take what I write with a few grains of salt.

1. A woman may change her rite upon marriage. Say a Maronite woman marries a Roman man. If the woman so desires, she may, upon marriage, transfer herself to her husband's rite, that is, become Roman.

2. A child belongs to the rite of his father. However, at the parents request, the child can be baptised into the mother's rite. For instance, say a Roman man and a Byzantine woman marry and have a baby. Technically the baby is Roman. If both parents so request, the baby can be baptised into the Byzantine rite.

3. Any person who has reached the age of 14 years and has not been baptised may approach a priest of any rite for baptism, and then is of that rite. The child of a Roman man and an Armenian woman could approach a Chaldean priest for baptism and would then be Chaldean rite.

4. Any Catholic who can secure the permission of both bishops may transfer from one rite to another. If a Roman can get the local Roman bishop and the corresponding bishop of the other eparchy to sign the papers, he's transfered. It's a good idea to talk to a priest who can help with this process. I'm willing to bet most people don't bother with the paperwork. They simply start attending a parish where they feel comfortable. I know of one city where there are a lot of Maronites but no Maronite parish. They simply register at the local Roman parishes.

Thanks Entomos.

It sounds logical to me about the changing rites in the Catholic Church. It sounds the same as in the Jewish faith. I as well as other people I know have a Jewish father and a Gentile/Christian mother. I remember reading not too long ago somewhere that the Orthodox Jewish faith says that the mother takes precedence over the father. If the father is Christian in this case, the children are to be raised Jewish. In the Reformed Jewish faith, the father takes precedence over the mother if she isn't Jewish. So if the mother is Christian and the father is Jewish, then the children would be raised Jewish.

I think that that's how I remember reading it.

There aren't any any Maronite Catholic Churches in my city either. However there is a priest who has been ordained as both a Roman and Maronite Catholic priest. Once a month on the first Sunday at one of the Catholic churches there is a Maronite mass in the early afternoon. Any Catholic is allowed to attend and receive eucharist.

Thank you and God bless.