Churches and rites ...

[Peter J]

Official Catholic documents make it quite clear that a rite and a (particular) church are not the same thing. But in terms of casual conversation, well, I've lost track of how many times I've corrected someone who said or implied that a rite and a (particular) church are the same thing. (On the other hand, there also seem to be a few people out there who think that the word “rite” should never be used at all.)

At the same time, it seems to be extremely common to hear statements like “If we used the Latin Rite instead of our Eastern Rite, there would no longer be a need for our particular church to exist.”

I don't have a very specific question to ask here, but I'm wondering if anyone has any helpful thoughts about the church - rite distinction.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Official Catholic documents make it quite clear that a rite and a (particular) church are not the same thing. But in terms of casual conversation, well, I've lost track of how many times I've corrected someone who said or implied that a rite and a (particular) church are the same thing. (On the other hand, there also seem to be a few people out there who think that the word “rite” should never be used at all.)

At the same time, it seems to be extremely common to hear statements like “If we used the Latin Rite instead of our Eastern Rite, there would no longer be a need for our particular church to exist.”

I don't have a very specific question to ask here, but I'm wondering if anyone has any helpful thoughts about the church - rite distinction.

In that case, I really don't much of a specific answer either.

Anyway, and FWLIW, it seems to me that the bolded portion above is spot-on (although I don't know common it is since I haven't heard it or an equivalent all that often).

[Peter J]

I don't know, that bolded portion always feels like a bit of a sucker-punch -- especially when it comes from somebody who previously stood up for the Eastern Catholic Churches as being churches and not rites -- but maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by malphono

(although I don't know common it is since I haven't heard it or an equivalent all that often).

Forget that I said "extremely common". I'm not sure why I said that.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Official Catholic documents make it quite clear that a rite and a (particular) church are not the same thing. But in terms of casual conversation, well, I've lost track of how many times I've corrected someone who said or implied that a rite and a (particular) church are the same thing. (On the other hand, there also seem to be a few people out there who think that the word “rite” should never be used at all.)

At the same time, it seems to be extremely common to hear statements like “If we used the Latin Rite instead of our Eastern Rite, there would no longer be a need for our particular church to exist.”

I don't have a very specific question to ask here, but I'm wondering if anyone has any helpful thoughts about the church - rite distinction.

Rite is used as in "change of rite", for example in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green. (See pp 151-152). It also has other meanings.

Modern Catholic Dictionary

RITE. In general, the manner and form of a religious function. Hence the words and actions to be carried out in the performance of a given act, e.g., the rite of baptism, or rite of consecration, the Roman Rite. The term in its widest ecclesiastical sense refers to the principal historic rituals in the Catholic Church, whose essentials are the same as derived from Jesus Christ. The four parent rites in Catholicism are the Antiochene, Alexandrine, Roman, and Gallican. Some religious orders have their own rites. In all cases, however, the ritual must be approved by the Holy See. (Etym. Latin ritus, religious custom, usage, ceremony.)

Latin Canon Law:

CIC Can.112 §2. The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church.

The eastern canon law (CCEO) lists traditions which are also known as parent rites in CIC.

Canon 28
1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.

Canon 27
A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.

Canon 150
1. Bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church have all the synodal rights and obligations of the other bishops of the same Church with due regard for can. 102, 2. 2. Laws enacted by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and promulgated by the patriarch, if they are liturgical, have the force of law everywhere in the world; if, however, they are disciplinary laws or concern other decisions of the synod, they have the force of law inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.

So liturgical laws are per Church sui iuris. In that sense each Church sui iuris has it's own rite. So we see these terms used:

Rite
Parent Rite
Tradition
Church sui iuris
Autonomous ritual church

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Official Catholic documents make it quite clear that a rite and a (particular) church are not the same thing. But in terms of casual conversation, well, I've lost track of how many times I've corrected someone who said or implied that a rite and a (particular) church are the same thing. (On the other hand, there also seem to be a few people out there who think that the word “rite” should never be used at all.)

At the same time, it seems to be extremely common to hear statements like “If we used the Latin Rite instead of our Eastern Rite, there would no longer be a need for our particular church to exist.”

I don't have a very specific question to ask here, but I'm wondering if anyone has any helpful thoughts about the church - rite distinction.

To be honest, it's kinda confusing since some people use those two terms interchangeably. Personally, however, I prefer to use "church" to refer to the institution and "rite" to refer to practices and customs within that institution. So for example, I would speak of the Roman, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian rites being practiced in the Latin Church or the Ruthenian and Melkite Churches using the Byzantine rite.

[LatinCatholic1]

Originally Posted by patrick457

To be honest, it's kinda confusing since some people use those two terms interchangeably. Personally, however, I prefer to use "church" to refer to the institution and "rite" to refer to practices and customs within that institution. So for example, I would speak of the Roman, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian rites being practiced in the Latin Church or the Ruthenian and Melkite Churches using the Byzantine rite.

I do the same, when people ask my religion I just say Catholic or Catholic of the Latin Church. But I also like using the term Latin Rite because my archdiocese uses the term " Latin Rite " to refer to the Western Church. But then again it can get confusing since the Latin Church has many different rites.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Official Catholic documents make it quite clear that a rite and a (particular) church are not the same thing. But in terms of casual conversation, well, I've lost track of how many times I've corrected someone who said or implied that a rite and a (particular) church are the same thing. (On the other hand, there also seem to be a few people out there who think that the word “rite” should never be used at all.)

At the same time, it seems to be extremely common to hear statements like “If we used the Latin Rite instead of our Eastern Rite, there would no longer be a need for our particular church to exist.”

I don't have a very specific question to ask here, but I'm wondering if anyone has any helpful thoughts about the church - rite distinction.

Also a particular church means diocese and is used in the Latin canon laws. Particular Churches also means the apostolic churches not in communion with Rome.
Ritual church is used in the Latin canon laws and means autonomous ritual church or church sui iuris.

[LatinCatholic1]

Originally Posted by Vico

Also a particular church means diocese and is used in the Latin canon laws. Particular Churches also means the apostolic churches not in communion with Rome.
Ritual church is used in the Latin canon laws and means autonomous ritual church or church sui iuris.

Interesting!

[The Idiot]

@ Vico

I'm puzzled

You said , in reference to the to the Code of Canons in the Latin Church you see the use of 'parent rite' I've never come across this before in anything published by Rome. Where did you find it ?

I believe it can be found in the Modern Catholic Dictionary but that is not an official document emanating from Rome .

[Vico]

Originally Posted by The Idiot

@ Vico

I'm puzzled

You said , in reference to the to the Code of Canons in the Latin Church you see the use of 'parent rite' I've never come across this before in anything published by Rome. Where did you find it ?

I believe it can be found in the Modern Catholic Dictionary but that is not an official document emanating from Rome .

Oh no, I did not mean that "parent rite" was used literally in the canon law, there the term "traditions" is used. And a rite is associated with a patrimony.

CCEO Canon 28
1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.

However, parent rite is used in general by the magisterium. For example this, from 2006, by the Prefect emeritus of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:

ADDRESS OF HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE

2. Different Rites in the Church

In the sacred liturgy the Church celebrates the mysteries of Christ by means of signs, symbols, gestures, movements, material elements and words. In this reflection we are focusing on words used in divine worship in the Roman or Latin Rite.

The core elements of the sacred liturgy, the seven sacraments, come from our Lord Jesus Christ himself. As the Church spread and grew among various peoples and cultures, various ways of celebrating the mysteries of Christ also developed. Four parent rites can be identified as the Antiochene, Alexandrine, Roman and Gallican. They gave rise to nine major rites in the Catholic Church today: in the Latin Church the Roman Rite is predominant, and then among the Eastern Churches we find the Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopian, Malabar, Maronite and Syrian Rites.

Each "Rite" is an historic blending of liturgy, theology, spirituality and Canon Law. The fundamental characteristics of each undoubtedly go back to the earliest centuries, the essentials to the apostolic age if not to Our Lord himself.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...erence_en.html

[The Idiot]

Thank you for the explanation

[ByzCathCantor]

ADDRESS OF HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE

2. Different Rites in the Church

In the sacred liturgy the Church celebrates the mysteries of Christ by means of signs, symbols, gestures, movements, material elements and words. In this reflection we are focusing on words used in divine worship in the Roman or Latin Rite.

The core elements of the sacred liturgy, the seven sacraments, come from our Lord Jesus Christ himself. As the Church spread and grew among various peoples and cultures, various ways of celebrating the mysteries of Christ also developed. Four parent rites can be identified as the Antiochene, Alexandrine, Roman and Gallican. They gave rise to nine major rites in the Catholic Church today: in the Latin Church the Roman Rite is predominant, and then among the Eastern Churches we find the Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopian, Malabar, Maronite and Syrian Rites.

Each "Rite" is an historic blending of liturgy, theology, spirituality and Canon Law. The fundamental characteristics of each undoubtedly go back to the earliest centuries, the essentials to the apostolic age if not to Our Lord himself.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...erence_en.html

This of course differs somewhat from the explanation in the CCC, but nonetheless has academic merit. However, I am always surprised to see the Gallican Rite described as a parent rite. Could be my own misunderstanding ...

[Vico]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

This of course differs somewhat from the explanation in the CCC, but nonetheless has academic merit. However, I am always surprised to see the Gallican Rite described as a parent rite. Could be my own misunderstanding ...

Because of this history (from Liturgy of Saint James - Jerusalem)

1. Rome: Ancient Roman
2. Carthage: Carthagenian -> Ancient Ambrosian
3. Alexandria: Coptic, Ethiopian
4. Antioch: Syriac, Syro-Malankara
5. Antioch: Cappadocian -> Constantinople -> Byzantine, Armenian
6. Edessa: Maronite, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar
7. Ancient Roman + Cappadocian -> Gallican
*** Ancient Roman + Gallican -> Roman
*** Gallican + Roman -> Lyons, Mozarabic, Braga
*** Ancient Ambrosian + Roman -> Ambrosian

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Vico

Because of this history (from Liturgy of Saint James - Jerusalem

Thanks for the info, but I still don't quite follow. The Liturgy of St. James was adapted by the Gallican Church, not developed by it. I thought the LSJ was considered to be of Antiochene origin.

Perhaps again I am not looking at this correctly ...

[Vico]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Thanks for the info, but I still don't quite follow. The Liturgy of St. James was adapted by the Gallican Church, not developed by it. I thought the LSJ was considered to be of Antiochene origin.

Perhaps again I am not looking at this correctly ...

develop, intr. verb (Merriam-Webster): 1 "to go through a process of natural growth, differentiation, or evolution by successive stages"

Antioch assimilated Jerusalem, but the Liturgy of Saint James is of Jerusalem, and it is thought that the Liturgy of Saint James came from the Apostolic Constitutions.

There was a Gallican Liturgy once (theories are that it was centered in either Lyons, Milan, or a wider area including Spain, Gaul, and Italy). Since other liturgies were influenced by it, it is a parent.