OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:12:18 AM

Title: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:12:18 AM
George asked if I would post a list of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. I debated whether it made more sense to simply enumerate them or include the listing as part of a larger, significantly more detailed, text that I've composed and reworked several times over the years to answer a variety of questions. The advantage of the latter is that it presents the info in a more organized fashion than is likely to be generated in response to questions developing in the aftermath of a simple list - so, here goes. I'm going to break it up into a series of posts, in the interests of readibility.

Title: Catholic Churches sui iuris
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:13:21 AM
Catholic Churches sui iuris

There are 23 Churches sui iuris (literally, ‘of their own law’, transliterated as ‘self-governing’ or ‘autonomous’) that, together, constitute the Catholic Church - 1 Western and 22 Eastern and Oriental Churches. All 23 are in communion with Rome, with the Latin Church being the most populous and well-known. In fact, many Catholics and non-Catholics alike are unaware of the Catholic Church in any manifestation other than that of its Latin or Western component.

(In answer to those who would query how 23 can be 1, and with no intent to trivialize the Mystery of the Trinity, I can only suggest reflecting on Saint Patrick’s example of the three-leaved shamrock.) 

The 23 Churches, despite significant diversity in their liturgical praxis, spirituality, and other respects, as illustrated below, are in communion with one another and with the Pope. Although the manner in which their beliefs are expressed and understood differ in some instances, they also have a shared adherence to the teachings enunciated by the Magisterium.

Arguments can be made whether 22 is an accurate number as to the non-Western Churches, since:


I've made efforts to address (if not satisfactorily explain) these points hereafter, whether successfully or not is for the reader to judge.

[continued]
Title: Self-Governance in sui iuris Churches
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:16:16 AM
Self-Governance in sui iuris Churches

This document evolved from a simple list of Rites and Churches created a few years ago, has been expanded several times by addition of pertinent information, and has had related texts merged with it to afford a fuller picture of the structure of Eastern and Oriental Catholicity. In all its iterations, editorial comment has been avoided in favor of factual presentation, leaving analysis, interpretation, and conclusions to the mind and imagination of the reader. However, this time, the compulsion to address the validity of terming Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches as sui iuris has overtaken and vanquished self-restraint..

Patriarchal and Major-Archepiscopal Churches are, to an extent, self-governing. Within the so-called “historical territories” of the primatial hierarch of each of these Churches, the hierarch and synod have the power of governance, with only subtle differences between the two statuses.

In recent history, however, even the scope of authority accorded by the Eastern Code (CCEO) can and has been withheld by Rome from one such Church - the restrictions imposed on the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church during the first decade (1993-2003) of it being a Major Arch-Episcopate are the case on point. For the first five years of that period, the Church was denied decision-making authority as to matters liturgical (the sole power that all Patriarchs and Major-Archbishops routinely exercise even outside their circumscribed historical bounds). It was five years more before the Church was accorded the right to nominate hierarchs to canonical jurisdictions within the territory of the Major Arch-Episcopate.

When denominated to that status, barely more than a century had passed since appointment of the Church’s first indigenous hierarchs (1886); and only 80 years since a full hierarchical structure was established for it (1923). Thus, at the time, I rationalized that the Church, likely due to its numbers of 3.6 million faithful, had been selected to share the ecclesial status of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (UGCC), but lacked the centuries of operational experience that the UGCC brought to the table when it was accorded Major-Archepiscopal status.

In retrospect, it was remiss not to acknowledge that the internal turmoil surrounding liturgical praxis in the Syro-Malabar Church was not merely contributory to Rome’s decision, but causative as well. Such, however, begs the question - is it appropriate to thusly interfere, interject, or intervene in the day-to-day decision-making of an ecclesia that is denominated as sui iuris and has just been canonically elevated to a status then accorded to only two Churches?  On reflection, the answer is “no!” - the more so because centuries of ill-advised superintendence, exercised over the indigenous Church by transplanted hierarchs in the name of the Roman dicastries, was a significant factor in creating the situation that the imposed restrictions were intended to solve. (Notably, although beyond the scope of this discussion, Rome ultimately walked away from the matter, having accomplished little to nothing toward its resolution.)   

Move outside the circumscribed bounds of historical territory and, this time by law, the powers of both hierarch and synod diminish significantly, effectively being reduced to those concerned with matters liturgical. In all other respects, those canonical entities of a sui iuris Church which are situated in the diaspora are exempt from the authority of the primatial hierarch and synod. Stand-alone parishes in the diaspora are subject to the local Latin Ordinary in almost all instances; the canonical jurisdictions are subject to the Oriental Congregation.

Is there a justification for this? Maybe once upon a time, when individual Churches were competing for bodies of faithful and jurisdictional authority over a given place. These days, the constituent population of each Church is effectively defined by tradition, with provisions in place to permit transfer of canonical enrollment for those whose spirituality or circumstances draw them to another Church. So, if there is justification, the argument is elusive, at the least. Is there even a coordinating role for Rome to play? I gave a lot of thought to that aspect, thinking about the clustering of multiple Sees in a single city and concluded, for a brief moment, “ahhh … there’s the need”, but then disabused myself of the notion. After all, presently, Rome does site canonical jurisdictions in the diaspora - has that resulted in a return to the canonical precept of “one city, one bishop”? Hardly, … Chicago boasts three; even Parma, not exactly a major metropolis, guests two - has it no suburbs?

Although, we’re no longer subjected to indignity the like of that inflicted on Saint Alexis Toth by Archbishop John Ireland or on Father John Wolansky, of blessed memory, by Archbishop John Ryan, certainly, having Rome at one’s shoulder or being physically situated in the jurisdictional bounds of your Latin brother hasn’t always been to the benefit of our Churches in the diaspora. Granted, if you were Bishop Justin (Najmy), of blessed memory, in process of establishing a Melkite Exarchate, the fraternal benevolence and generosity of the late Richard Cardinal Cushing was a boon, instrumental to your success.

If, on the other hand, you were Bishop Manuel (Batakian) and learned that the local Latin Cardinal Archbishop was closing the church which served as Cathedral of your Armenian Eparchy, with no offer of an alternative, you might justifiably feel less than blessed. While it cannot be argued that the latter situation would have been different under the direct omophor of the Armenian Patriarch, it is illustrative that direct supervision by the Oriental Congregation has no cachet attached and fraternity apparently has its bounds.

For Metropolitan and Eparchial Churches sui iuris, the situation as to self-governance marks sui iuris as that much more a contradiction in terms. While the primatial hierarch and Council of Hierarchs of a Metropolitan Church enjoy minor privileges, the hierarch of an Eparchial Church - even in its historical territory - exercises no more autonomy than does any local Ordinary of the Latin Church. The few Eparchies which have another jurisdiction attached have no authority over such. All such subordinate jurisdictions are Apostolic Exarchates and as such are responsible to him on whose behalf the Exarch acts; in this instance, that is the Apostolic See. Where is the self-governance? What does being sui iuris do for our Churches?

To my jaundiced eye, the totality of these facts and circumstances suggests that there is no Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church which can be truly described as sui iuris. Is it any wonder that our Orthodox brethren shake their heads in wonder as we trumpet our autonomous status? I think not.       

[continued]
Title: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:19:01 AM
Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches

Historically, all of what are ordinarily termed Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches (and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches from which almost all of them derive) were once part, with the Western Church, of a single Church that splintered through the centuries. The first division occurred subsequent to the Council of Ephesus, another after that of Chalcedon, and the third in a time-frame surrounding the so-called Great Schism of 1054 (the schism had its beginnings a century and a half prior and was not complete for as long thereafter). The specific events involved in the separation of these Churches from one another and with the Western Church, and the circumstances that led to some of their adherents reuniting with Rome, are far too involved for this discussion, which is intended primarily as a quick reference to the structure of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as they presently exist. A brief but excellent summary of the historical circumstances peculiar to each of the Churches, reasonably objective and free of polemics, is at The Eastern Christian Churches - A Brief Survey (http://www.cnewa.org/generalpg-verus.aspx?pageID=182) by Father Ron Roberson, CP, at the Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA) site (http://www.cnewa.org/home-us.aspx) .   

Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, generally, represent bodies of faithful whose ancestors, at various points in history, entered into communion with Rome from Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, effectively mending, for their part, the mutual schisms that occurred some centuries prior. Since these reunions were not corporate (i.e., none involved reunification in toto of a Church’s hierarchy, clergy, and faithful), there is a counterpart Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Church to every Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church except two - the Maronite Catholic Church and the Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church.

The reason usually advanced as to why these two Churches have no counterpart among the Orthodox Churches is that neither was ever separated from the Church of Rome. However, the continuous communion of the Maronites is a matter of debate among historians. As regards the Italo-Graeco-Albanians, the reality of continuous communion is only true of the Church in its present form, an amalgamation of what were once three distinct ecclesial communities, two of which (Greek and Albanian) have Orthodox counterparts (the third - Italo-Byzantines - is no longer extant as a discernible ecclesia, its faithful having been subsumed into the Italo-Greek Church) .

Arguments are sometimes advanced that the Melkite Greek-Catholic and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches, among others, also never parted communion with Rome. In response to such claims (and similar ones have been advanced on behalf of various other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches), it may be that there were individual canonical jurisdictions (i.e., eparchies) or communities (e.g., parishes) of an Eastern or Oriental Church which remained in union with Rome, de facto, if not overtly. (Certainly, there are documented instances in which jurisdictions maintained dual communion with Rome and Constantinople). However, incontrovertible evidence to support continuous communion with Rome are not readily available or accessible. (In truth, all such claims are of little consequence, given that they are employed primarily as “one-upmanship” by thoses seeking to demonstrate that they are “more Catholic” than others.)

Classifying Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches

There are multiple ways in which one might classify Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, but the most common are:


[continued]
Title: Classification as Eastern versus Oriental
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:31:51 AM
Eastern versus Oriental Catholic Churches
   
Churches that utilize the Byzantine Rite should technically be termed Eastern Catholic Churches, with most others properly referred to as Oriental Catholic Churches. This distinction mirrors that made between the two Orthodox Communions, i.e., those Orthodox Churches which serve the Divine Liturgy according to the Byzantine or Constantinoplian Rite are commonly termed Eastern Orthodox; those which serve it according to other Rites are ordinarily styled as Oriental Orthodox.

It should be noted, though, that the terms “Eastern” and “Oriental” are actually synonyms and this distinction is, therefore, artificial at best - and cannot readily be made in some languages - French, for instance. In fact, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Catholic are often employed interchangeably as umbrella terms, most commonly by  the Vatican, to encompass all Catholic Churches sui iuris other than the Latin or Western Church.

My personal preference is in favor of making the distinction and I generally do so, although it is admittedly oft-times cumbersome and always verbose.

The Maronite Catholic Church, as a consequence of having no Orthodox counterpart, fails to fall neatly into either category - Eastern or Oriental. Similarly, Chaldean and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches can not be properly classified into either group, since their historical antecedent is the Assyrian Church of the East, which is of neither the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox communions. The tendency, in all three instances, is to include these Churches with the Oriental Catholic Churches, as they are not Byzantine but have historical and  liturgical ties to Churches of the Antiochene Rite, which are classed as Oriental. To simplify an already complex discussion, I generally follow that rule (the list below is an exception to my usual practice, for relatively obvious reasons).







[continued]
Title: Classification by Rite
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:40:27 AM
Rites

Note that this discussion addresses the historical development of Rites in relatively simple fashion. There is further history involved, but it is beyond the scope of what is hoped to be accomplished here, which is to make the reader aware of the different Rites and which Churches use them. The 22 Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches use six different Rites among them. The largest number of Churches (14) use the Byzantine Rite.

Originally, there were three Rites - Latin, Alexandrean, and Antiochene; the Byzantine (or Constantinoplian) Rite was added thereafter. Rites arose from the customs and style of worship in what were then the four most important Christian centers, other than Jerusalem.

Differences among the Rites in liturgical language, rubrics, ritual, devotionals, prayers, liturgical and clerical vesture, etc., sprang initially from the fact that uniformity of praxis was impossible to maintain over time, as the number of clergy increased, local cultures and customs began to be woven into rituals, and both travel and communication were hampered by geography and the limited means available to make and maintain contact among churches and clerics.

Over time, those four Rites were modified or further developed as they were introduced into new regions. Some of these variations were so distinctive as to be deemed separate Rites, among these were the Maronite and Armenian Rites, which each developed in relative isolation because of geography. The result was that many authorities denoted the Maronite as a Rite unto itself; while others placed it within what was termed the West Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite, from whence it had originated. As to the Armenian Rite, although acknowledged to have originated within the Byzantine Rite, it has long since been acknowledged as distinct. The Melkites originally served according to the Antiochene Rite but, as a consequence of coming under the influence of Constantinople, later adopted use of the Byzantine Rite.   

Of late, Chaldean has been added to the list of Rites, being formally cited as such in the CCEO, although, historically, it had been classed in the East Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite. I offer two theories to account for it being accorded as a Rite unto itself, with no basis to support either, other than my own personal musings on the matter:


My speculation as to why the Maronite is not cited in the CCEO as a distinct and separate Rite is that the need for the Maronites to recover their historical, traditional liturgical identity has, of necessity, caused them to look to their brethren of the Antiochene Rite. This will, assuredly, sacrifice some of the blended Antiochene and Latin praxis that has marked their liturgical style until now and will, in time, cause them to be more definitively denominated as Antiochene. For now, I have retained the older usage, designating it as a distinct Rite.   

[continued]
Title: Church versus Rite
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:45:33 AM
Church vs. Rite

For a long time, each group of Eastern Catholics was referred to by its name (most often reflective of its historical cultural/national identity or ethnic origin), followed by the word “Rite”. Thus, you would hear references to someone being of the “Ukrainian Rite” or to “Melkite Rite Catholics”. At the urging of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic hierarchs participating in the Second Vatican Council, particularly His Beatitude Maximos IV Saigh, Patriarch of Antioch & All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem of the Greek-Melkites, of blessed memory, the Church recognized the status of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as sui iuris ecclesial entities, each of which uses a particular Rite. Thus, it is a disparagement (as well as inaccurate) to substitute “Rite” for “Church” in the name of any of these bodies.

The distinction is made in Canons 27 and 28 of the Eastern Code of Canon Law:

Canon 27


Canon 28


 
Beyond the codified definition of “Rite”, it should be further understood to be the collected liturgical patrimony or heritage by which a body of faithful conduct their religious life. It is more than just differences in language, culture, and vesture, although those are often among the most immediately obvious distinctions. It's often thought of as strictly applicable to liturgical worship service; it actually includes the totality of a people's religious expression, including their sacraments, sacramentals, devotionals, prayers, music, and even aspects of their religious artistic expression and ecclesial architecture.

Interestingly, in the West, persons belong to a Rite and Rites to a Church (which uses more than a single Rite). In the East, persons belong to a Church and the Church (in some instances, more than a single Church) to a Rite. (In the cases of the Armenian, and Maronite Rites, each Rite is used by only a single Church sui iuris and, in both of these instances, the Church's name and that of the Rite are identical.)

By way of example:


Rites, the delineations within each (e.g., Traditions, Rescensions, and Usages) and the jurisdictional considerations which affect those, have been used to illustrate the functional structure of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as applied to liturgical praxis.

[continued]
Title: Tradition, Rescension, Usage
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:49:40 AM
Tradition, Rescension, Usage

Tradition is a distinction within a Rite that principally reflects variations of culture, sometimes including ecclesial language. Within some Traditions, there are also what are styled Rescensions.

Rescension is a distinction in characteristics of the form of worship that is unique to one or more of the Churches or their constituent canonical jurisdictions that follow a particular Tradition (or, in some instances, a particular Rite in which there is no intervening break-down by Tradition). Note that, historically, "Recension" has been a term used in conjunction with Liturgy only as to the Ruthenians; however, there remains a level of distinction in the praxis of some of the Churches which falls beneath that of Tradition, but is more than a Usage. So, Rescension it will be, unless/until someone offers me a better choice by which to term the differentiation.

Church is a sui iuris body of faithful which worships according to a particular Rite.

Usage is a term that ordinarily denotes limited, localized differences within a Church itself (as opposed to a Rescension, which generally occurs at the level of Rite or Tradition). Although employed in the Latin Church {e.g., the Anglican Usage), to the best of my knowledge, it is not anywhere officially applied to any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches. However, in my opinion, it is the most logical term to describe liturgical praxis that accommodates specific, localized variations in language and/or ceremony. I’ve qualified these by whatever jurisdictional limits are known to be applicable to the Usage.

Jurisdiction indicates a canonical entity within a Church. Jurisdictions are listed in either of the following instances (in some cases, both considerations apply):


Dependent Jurisdiction further defines the canonical entity or entities (e.g., an eparchy within a metropolia) to which application of a praxis factor (i.e., Tradition, Rescension, Usage) is limited or from which it is excluded.

Jurisdictional Limitations narrow, yet further, the canonical entity or entities (e.g., a parish within an eparchy) to which application of a praxis factor is limited or from which it is excluded.

Special Circumstances document unique considerations applicable to a Church or certain of its jurisdictions. As examples, these might include:


That a Church has or does not have canonical jurisdictions in the diaspora is not routinely noted. In instances where such is documented, it was for the purpose of recording some particular fact. (Admittedly, there are also some relatively trivial details reported as to some Churches or jurisdictions. The purpose in that was to assure that information of a principally nostalgic nature, not uncommonly disregarded in formal histories, was recorded somewhere, for whatever it is worth.)

The schematic is intended as a self-explanatory, quick reference to the praxis of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. Over time, detail has been added because it seemed important to do so or in response to repeated requests for its inclusion. Such detail has created, in turn, the need for yet more information, requiring explanatory notes in some instances and making it increasingly difficult for the schematic to be a stand-alone document. To assure clarity, while attempting to maintain the integrity of the schematic, the notes have been added at the end.

[Continued]
Title: Format of the Schematic Listing
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 07:56:31 AM
The outline of the schematic is generally as follows. (Every effort has been made to avoid or minimize instances in which the breakout deviates from this because of the intervention of peculiar circumstances, requiring more levels of detail. But, it’s not for nothing that many of us are called  “byzantine”):




[continued]
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 20, 2007, 08:00:01 AM
to be continued - tonight
Title: Alexandrian Rite
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 21, 2007, 03:12:59 AM


[continued]
Title: Antiochene Rite
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 21, 2007, 03:31:45 AM


[continued]

Title: Armenian Rite
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 21, 2007, 03:35:14 AM


[continued]
Title: Byzantine (Constantinoplian) Rite
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 21, 2007, 06:31:56 AM
[/list]
Title: Chaldean & Maronite Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 22, 2007, 05:12:03 AM




[continued]
Title: Notes to the Schematic
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 22, 2007, 06:14:48 AM
Note 1:  Ge’ez Tradition - There is frequent use of the terminology “Ge’ez Rite”, including by Ethiopian Catholics themselves. This reflects, in part, an effort to assert a distinction between their liturgical form and that of the Copts, a task made more difficult by the tendency  to style the Rite of all North African Churches as “Coptic” rather than “Alexandrian.” I adhere to the usage of “Alexandrian” for the Rite and employ “Ge’ez” to distinguish between the Copts and Ethiopians on the basis of Tradition. (Ge’ez is actually the name of an ancient tongue, related to Amharic, and is the traditional liturgical language of the Ethiopian Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.)

Note 2: Ethiopian (& Eritrean) Catholic Church - Increasingly, the name of the Ethiopian Catholic Church is rendered as Ethiopian/Eritrean Catholic Church (or Eritrean used parenthetically, as here). This is significant because it acknowledges that the Ethiopian Church is affording pastoral care to a distinct ethnic/national/cultural body of Eastern Christians (and, like it or not, in the homelands at least, Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches are generally very much defined by such characteristics).

Note 3: East versus West Syrian Traditions - This distinction is less important now that the Chaldean and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches are considered to be of a Chaldean Rite, rather than being included within the Antiochene Rite. The styling is retained here primarily for reference purposes.

Note 4: Knanaya/Knanaites - The Knanya are Oriental Catholic and Orthodox descended from 72 families of Christian Jews, comprising about 400 persons, who emigrated to India in three ships about 345 AD under the leadership of Knaithomman or Thomas the Cananite. The immigrants are said to have been accompanied by a bishop, whom history records as Uraha Mar Yausef (Joseph), four presbyters, and deacons. The Knanaites, a strictly endogenous community, retain particular liturgical, devotional, and cultural practices unique to themselves and, by the Apostolic Brief Universi Christiani, Pope Saint Pius X erected a personal jurisdiction (now the autonomous Metropolitan Arch-Eparchy of Kottayam) for them within the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. Although formal Knanya jurisdictions exist only in that Church and the Syrian Orthodox Jacobite (Indian) Church, there are Knanaites within each of the Indian ecclesial communities (other than the Latin Catholic) and, officially or otherwise, provisions are made to accommodate their  praxis in all of the Churches of Saint Thomas Christians. The resultant complexities are illustrated by the seeming incongruity of a Usage from one Rite (Antiochene) being employed within the canonical jurisdiction of another Rite (Chaldean), i.e.. the (Chaldean Rite) Syro-Malabarese maintaining parishes in 2 of their eparchies for Syro-Malankara Knanaites, in which the liturgical forms employed are those of the Malankarese's ancestral (Antiochene) Rite.

Note 5: Greek Byzantine Catholic Church - “Greek-” as the adjectival descriptor to “Catholic” is used throughout for the majority of the Churches in the Byzantine Rite. The inclusion of 'Byzantine' in styling the Greek and Italo-Graeco-Albanian Catholic Churches reflects the fact that 'Greek' is already an integral part of the cultural and ethnic heritage reflected in their names. (The Metropolia of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church has adopted the term 'Byzantine' as an integral aspect of its name, not without some negative reaction from those of other Churches which are also Byzantine in practice.)

Note 6: Georgian Greek-Catholic Church - Reference to this Church is frequently missing from lists of Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches and, within a few decades (if not sooner), mention of it will, almost assuredly, be in a footnote accompanied by the prayer “memory eternal”. The Church has been without clergy for a half-century and its surviving faithful presently are estimated to number in the hundreds.
 
Note 7: Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church - See the comments at Note 5 regarding retention of the usage “Byzantine” in the Church’s name.

Note 8: Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church - Although Byzantine in Rite, this Church is technically of the Latin or Western Patriarchate.

Note 9:  Croatian Greek-Catholic Church - There is a decided tendency to label this Church by the name of its canonical jurisdiction, Krizevci, for reasons that are unclear, or as “Greek Catholics in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia” (a term suggestive of Tito’s effort to meld a country of a myriad of ethnicities who really wanted nothing to do with one another). The primatial jurisdiction is essentially comprised of Croats, a point made more clear by the establishment of separate jurisdictions within its overall structure for three other ethnic bodies; the more accurate descriptor “Croatian” is used here.

Note 10: Usages in the Syro-Malarbarese Church - Other than the Knanaite, the distinction of "Usages" is not "official". Rather, it is an effort to put to paper (in some logical and non-polemical form) the various liturgical variations that are currently prevalent in the Syro-Malabar Church as a consequence of the internal debate in that Church as to the form the Holy Qurbana should take.

What I describe as Assyro-Chaldean Usage is that of antiquity, to which Rome apparently hopes the Church will return (albeit, Rome itself effectively created the situation that resulted in it being initially abandoned). Malabarese Usage is the term that I've applied to the heavily latinized Qurbana; those who support this Usage (and resist the idea of returning to the Assyro-Chaldean Usage) deem this to be "Indianized" - rather than "Latinized"
Mixed (Chaldean-Malabarese) Usage seeks to describe a move on the part of some hierarchs and clergy to serve the Holy Qurbana in a way that incorporates some of the more ancient praxis without abandoning all aspects of the latinized form - essentially a hybrid usage. It is debated whether this is a genuine effort to effect compromise or simply a measure hoped to placate Rome and bring an end to its concern.

I do not have details as to the particulars of differences in praxis among the 3, other than that the orientation of the celebrant to the people and altar is involved. It is certainly a struggle to keep in mind that "Indianized" - to those seeking to avoid the return to an Assyrian form - is equivalent to "Latinized" - in the minds of those who want to see that return happen.)

[continued]
Title: Classification by Ecclesial or Hierarchical Status
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 22, 2007, 06:34:36 AM
Ecclesial/Hierarchical Status

Other than historical precedent (and even that is not consistent across all instances), no factor is acknowledged as determinant in deciding the ecclesiastical office to be accorded to the primatial hierarch of any Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church. Changes in the past century, elevating the ruling hierarchs of several Churches (and, accordingly, the ecclesiastical status of the Churches themselves), arguably support the proposition that the number of faithful is the primary consideration in so doing. Less clear is the motivation that inspired Rome to create a hitherto non-existent canonical jurisdiction (i.e., major archepiscopate) and accompanying hierarchical styling (i.e., major-archbishop) intermediate to the traditional patriarchate and metropolia, although reasonable hypotheses can be offered toward explaining it. 

Presently, within each Rite, there is one hierarch of the dignity of Patriarch; in most instances. Major-Archbishops exist in four Churches, of three different Rites. Metropolitans are the ruling hierarchs of two Churches.

In theory, the remaining Churches should each be headed by a bishop exercising the office of Eparch; in fact, some are headed by bishops, others by prelates of lesser status. Those incumbents are variously styled as Eparch, Exarch, Apostolic Administrator, Apostolic Visitator, or Abbot, corresponding to the jurisdictions headed; among those, only Eparchs can be said to actually exercise hierarchical jurisdiction.

Ordinariates for Faithful of the Eastern or Oriental Rites are jurisdictions erected in nations with a Catholic population that is predominantly Latin, but with a substantial minority presence of Eastern or Oriental Catholic faithful who are without a canonical jurisdiction or hierarch. Officially, there are five such Ordinariates; a sixth Ordinariate, not formally designated, exists de facto, albeit not de jure.

The import of a Church’s ecclesial/hierarchical status chiefly lies in the degree of autonomy which its primatial hierarch and its hierarchy, as a body, are able, technically, to exercise without recourse to Rome or the necessity to be accorded confirmation or approval by Rome of appointments, decisions, etc..













[continued]
Title: Presiding Hierarchs: Patriarchal, Major-Archepiscopal, & Metropolitan Churches
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 22, 2007, 07:01:01 AM
Presiding Hierarchs

Patriarchal Churches


Major Archepiscopal Churches


Metropolitan Arch-Eparchial Churches

Title: Presiding Hierarchs: Eparchial Churches
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 22, 2007, 07:16:48 AM
Eparchial Churches
 
Eparchial Churches are Eastern Catholic Churches “entrusted to hierarchs who preside over (the Church) as per the norms of common and particular law”.

All such Churches are of the Byzantine-Greek or Byzantine-Slav Traditions. All but one of the presiding hierarchs are of the Order of Bishop, but are variously styled as to the offices they hold, since not all of the jurisdictions are currently designated as eparchies. Each of the presiding hierarchs derives and is accorded precedence based on his office (i.e., that he exercises canonical jurisdiction over a Church sui iuris) rather than his ecclesiastical rank or title.




Eparchial Catholic Churches sine episcopi (without hierarchs)

These are Churches “entrusted to hierarchs (not necessarily of the Rite) who preside over (the Church) as per the norms of common and particular laws” (hierarchs locum tenens), either because the Church was never formally organized with a hierarchy or its principal See is vacant (sede vacante). All are of the Byzantine Greek or Slav Traditions.

Title: [b]Communities with Jurisdictions but without sui iuris status & Ordinariates
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 22, 2007, 07:42:22 AM
Communities with Jurisdictions but without sui iuris status

With one exception, the following ethnic or national communities are named in the titling of canonical jurisdictions within the Churches sui iuris indicated, but they do not themselves presently have a distinct sui iuris identity or status.




Note: The significance of these canonical jurisdictions lies in the fact that they serve identifiable ethnic or national communities with Eastern or Oriental Catholic populations distinct from that of the Church sui iuris within which the jurisdiction is situated. Although one can find lists of Churches sui iuris which will include reference to one or more of these (most especially that of the Czechs) as being a Church sui iuris; none of them are presently so designated.

Whether any of them will be denoted as such in the future is an arguable question. Many would suggest that Rome is not inclined to create additional Churches within the sphere of Eastern & Oriental Catholicism, particularly as doing so might further antagonize ecumenical dialogue and relations with the Orthodox Churches. On the other hand, there are several examples in which cultural, ethnic, geo-political, and historical conflicts and differences exist between the peoples served by the parent and constituent jurisdictions. Such circumstances persuasively argue for the wisdom of separating the two into distinct ecclesial entities - notwithstanding concerns with regard to Churches being perceived as national or ethnic in orientation.

Relations between the Ethiopians and Eritreans are a case in point, exemplified by the organizational structure of their counterpart Orthodox brethren. The Eritrean Orthodox are closely allied with and were granted their Patriarchate by the Coptic Orthodox Church, rather than the Ethiopian Tewahado Orthodox Church. The other prime example involves “Greek-Catholics of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia” (a terminology that appears to have taken on an identity of its own) - these disparate peoples, especially the Croats and Serbs, have a history replete with antagonism and hostility at levels that argue persuasively against forging common identity, even one based on shared religious belief as its underlayment.   

Ordinariates

All except one Ordinariate are headed by a ranking Latin hierarch of the nation in which each is situated.







[continued]
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 22, 2007, 07:54:11 AM
For a brief, relatively non-polemical history of each of the Churches (and the Orthodox counterpart Churches), see

The Eastern Christian Churches – A Brief Survey (7th edition) (http://www.cnewa.org/generalpg-verus.aspx?pageID=182) by Father Ronald Roberson, CSP, on the CNEWA website (click the Table of Contents link - the entire text is on-line)

For a compilation of statistics on each Church and its constituent canonical jurisdictions, derived by Father Roberson from the Annuario Pontificio, see:

2005 Annuario Pontificio Statistics (http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat05.pdf)

2006 Annuario Pontificio Statistics (http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat06.pdf)

2007 Annuario Pontificio Statistics (http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat07.pdf)

Many years,

Neil
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 23, 2007, 05:49:18 AM
If there is anything that anyone feels needs correction, should be added, or needs clarification, feel free ...

Many years,

Neil
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 25, 2007, 09:33:27 AM
I notice that I incorporated an erroneous line of text in the schematic of the Chaldean Rite.

The lined-out text below should not be included. The time for editing has passed, so this correction will have to suffice.

Quote
  • Knanaite Usage (See Note 4)
    • Metropolitan Arch-Eparchy of Kottayam of the Knanaites
      • All Parishes, except
        • Parishes of the Episcopal Vicariate for Malankara Knanaites
          • The fifteen Parishes of the Episcopal Vicariate for Malankara Knanaites canonically serve the Knanaite Usage of the Malankara Rescension of the Antiochene Rite


    • Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago of the Syro-Malabarese
      • Vicariate for Knanaya Catholic Community in North America only
        • Ten Parishes
          • The ten Parishes of the Vicariate for the Knanaya Catholic Community in North America canonically serve the Knanaite Usage of the Malankara Rescension of the Antiochene Rite

Many years,

Neil   :-[
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: ozgeorge on November 25, 2007, 10:36:40 PM
I notice that I incorporated an erroneous line of text in the schematic of the Chaldean Rite.

The lined-out text below should not be included. The time for editing has passed, so this correction will have to suffice.

Many years,

Neil   :-[
Fixed it for ya!
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 26, 2007, 04:53:34 AM
Fixed it for ya!

Ah the power of a mod  ;D

Thanks, my brother

Many years,

Neil
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: minasoliman on November 26, 2007, 08:56:07 PM
I think this deserves to be a nice sticky if no one objects.  This is after all just an informative thread, which I thank Fr. Ambrose for.

Fr. bless!
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 27, 2007, 02:05:49 AM
I think this deserves to be a nice sticky if no one objects.  This is after all just an informative thread, which I thank Fr. Ambrose for.

Fr. bless!

Mina, (the same Mina that I used to know at the Voice in the Desert?)

Dear friends though we are, and him barely my senior by about 10 months, and we both being of Irish ancestry, and good-looking  ::)  , and of impeccable taste  8) , and imbued with a wonderful sense of humor  :laugh: , and possessing all those other wonderful Irish qualities  :angel: - including a huge quotient of humility  ;) ,  it's not all that surprising that we're mistaken for one another.

But, looking up at the 7 smiling faces staring from my mantel, I don't think anyone is going to believe me if I claim to be a hermit  :o

Many years,

Neil, the other Irish poster
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: minasoliman on November 28, 2007, 04:57:25 PM
Mina, (the same Mina that I used to know at the Voice in the Desert?)

Why yes  :)

Neil, thank you.  Sorry for the mix-up. :-[
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: trifecta on November 30, 2007, 03:53:00 AM
Thanks for the interesting thread.

I have only skimmed it, but I have an embarrassingly
simple question:

Why do Rite churches exist?  How come in some
countries, you have RC (Latin right?) churches without a
national church, while in others (usually Orthodox
countries) you have Rite Churches? 

Plus, I assume that in some countries you have
both Rite and RC Church (as in the US, come to
think it).  I would think this presents a problem
because, in these places, you have two jurisdictions
in the "one" Catholic Church.

Finally, where does the Chinese Catholic Church
fit into all of this?

Thanks in advance.  By the way, I like the idea
of locking this thread, despite this addition ;).

trifecta
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Irish Melkite on November 30, 2007, 06:03:36 AM
I have only skimmed it, but I have an embarrassingly simple question:

trifecta,

Be not embarrassed - ah, that it were so simple  ;D

Quote
Why do Rite churches exist?  How come in some countries, you have RC (Latin right?) churches without a national church, while in others (usually Orthodox countries) you have Rite Churches?
 

This is the simpler aspect. Remember that, with the exception of the Maronites, Catholic Churches of other than the Latin Rite mirror an Orthodox Church in spirituality and praxis and are comprised in large measure of (the descendents) of persons who came into union with Rome at some point subsequent to the various time points in which separations occurred among the various Apostolic Churches. Logically, then, these (Eastern and Oriental Catholic) Churches are generally going to exist in the same country as the (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox) Church from which they separated. And, without question, the rationale for maintaining the faithful of these in their historic spirituality and praxis included a hope that doing so would provide an inviting venue by which more of their fellow Orthodox would follow - a premise that isn't generally supported any longer.

Countries in which Latin churches exist without any "national" church presence are generally those which don't have religious, cultural, ethnic ties to peoples who have been historically Orthodox (that generally includes those countries in which the presence of Orthodoxy is of relatively recent vintage, rather than of long-standing nature - examples would be Japan and Finland) and there is not a history of persons separating from Orthodoxy and entering union with Rome. (Poland, for a variety of reasons that are exemplary of abuse by Latins of Eastern Catholics, is an exception. It has, for all intents, no counterpart Eastern Catholic Church - there are churches of other Eastern Catholic ethnicities, such as Ukrainians - despite the presence of a Polish Orthodox Church.)

Quote
Plus, I assume that in some countries you have both Rite and RC Church (as in the US, come to think it).  I would think this presents a problem because, in these places, you have two jurisdictions in the "one" Catholic Church.

Heck, there are places where there are three or four hierarchs/juridictions in a single city (Chicago comes to mind), with each exercising jurisdiction over distinct faithful. And, there are at least three instances in which a hierarch has jurisdiction over his faithful throughout the entire US - thus, effectively overlapping a myriad of Latin hierarchs, as well as several Eastern and Oriental hierarchs who each have smaller territorial jurisdictions within the country. Is it a problem? Does it offend the Canon of "one bishop in one place"? Under the strictest interpretation, it does, as does the similar situation with regard to our Orthodox brethren - who likewise have geographic overlap in exercising canonical jurisdiction over their respective faithful. All of us, Catholic and Orthodox, effectively have created our own fictions and oekonomia to explain the necessity to do so and I have to be honest, I am so tired of the rehashing of arguments about it that I have little patience for it anymore. Those in either Church who would seek to defend their own praxis in this regard and condemn that of the other Church are, to my mind, conducting an exercise in hypocrisy, in which I can't any longer bother to participate.

Quote
Finally, where does the Chinese Catholic Church fit into all of this?

The Catholic Church in China is of the Latin Rite; although there was (and still is, albeit, civilly suppressed) a Byzantine Exarchate in Harbin and Byzantine Catholic churches there and in Shanghai, the majority of the faithful of those were Russian Byzantines, rather than Chinese - which I think was also the case when the earliest Orthodox temples were established there. Both Churches suffered extensively, including giving many martyrs, especially during the communist years after WWII and neither has truly had the opportunity to be re-established.

If you are asking the question in the context of the styling "Oriental Catholics", the reference is not to Orientals in the common parlance. The terminology is used as counterpart to Oriental Orthodox - being the Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Syro-Malankara.

Hope that answers your questions (I'm having trouble deciding, because I'm reading and responding through a haze of cold/flu medication)

Many years,

Neil
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: henrikhankhagnell on March 09, 2011, 09:03:47 AM
another important information:

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.
and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 01:24:02 PM
another important information:

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.
and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: podkarpatska on March 09, 2011, 01:29:38 PM
another important information:

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.
and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 01:38:46 PM
another important information:

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.
and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.
Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: mike on March 09, 2011, 04:49:41 PM
EO Christians while converting to the CC are obliged to join the Church that corresponds their rite not the one they would like to choose.

The reality shows how Vatican treats his Eastern Churches.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 05:06:16 PM
another important information:

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.
and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".
I've been told otherwise by those who have been told (by someone in authority) otherwise:all Protestants, consequently must go Latin rite.  That would explain, for instance, why only one the Latin church has missionions and the other 22 only have them in their homeland and diaspora.

I know that the Phanar envies this setup, but that's why Chambesy isnn't going anywhere.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: henrikhankhagnell on March 09, 2011, 05:09:58 PM
another important information:

according to what i have heard it is very difficult to become eastern/oriental catholic. if you are orthodox and convert to catholicism, if you marry an eastern/oriental catholic or if you belong to a monastery with eastern/oriental rite, are born in the eastern/oriental part of the world then it may become easier. according to what I know you should first try the roman rite but if you just can't stand this rite and talk with the bishops then it is ok to change but you must have a very good reason. If you really love the eastern/oriental rites it is better to become orthodox.
and it should be said that all catholics are allowed to attend all the rites of the catholic church.
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".
I've been told otherwise by those who have been told (by someone in authority) otherwise:all Protestants, consequently must go Latin rite.  That would explain, for instance, why only one the Latin church has missionions and the other 22 only have them in their homeland and diaspora.
so i guess the best way to become eastern catholic is to actually become roman rite catholic but practise eastern spirituality.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: mike on March 09, 2011, 05:11:52 PM
No. You would be just Roman Catholic practising Eastern Spirituality not an Eastern Catholic.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on January 26, 2012, 09:08:12 PM
EO Christians while converting to the CC are obliged to join the Church that corresponds their rite not the one they would like to choose.

The reality shows how Vatican treats his Eastern Churches.

I'm surprised that almost a year has gone by without any Catholic posters responding to this post.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on May 07, 2012, 09:37:39 AM
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

Hi Papist and podkarpatska. So, if I understand this right, the question you guys are (or were) talking about is, Why does a Catholic need the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction. Or am I misunderstanding the question?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 16, 2013, 11:29:30 AM
An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

Hi Papist and podkarpatska. So, if I understand this right, the question you guys are (or were) talking about is, Why does a Catholic need the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction. Or am I misunderstanding the question?

P.S. I just came across this post of mine (having forgotten about it). It occurs to me that perhaps I ought to have said: Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction? Anyone?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 20, 2013, 10:39:36 PM
Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?

Do any of you have an answer to that?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Anastasia1 on February 21, 2013, 03:15:42 AM
Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?

Do any of you have an answer to that?
IMO, that seems a bit controlling. I've never been or visited a church where you need permission to leave, and I've looked at a lot. I've heard of people talking to their minister before leaving and taking maybe advice, but ultimately, the individual makes the choice and talks to the receiving group. And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: dzheremi on February 21, 2013, 04:13:18 AM
I'm not sure that's what Peter J is talking about though, Anastasia. If I remember correctly, to transfer to another church within the RC communion (rather than just showing up, I suppose) is a matter of canonical enrollment, so that you would be counted as a member of X (sui juris) church from there on out, rather than whatever church you were coming from (e.g., Latin Catholic transfers to the Maronite Church, thereby becoming Maronite 'officially', presumably after practicing at a Maronite Church for a while beforehand). It is a weird concept from an Orthodox perspective (the idea that you should have to officially "switch" to be a part of a particular church...to paraphrase what you wrote, if all share the same faith, why the switch?), but hey...one of many, right?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 21, 2013, 08:46:50 AM
Why is it surprising (or shocking) that a Catholic needs the permission of his old bishop in order to transfer to a different jurisdiction?

Do any of you have an answer to that?
IMO, that seems a bit controlling. I've never been or visited a church where you need permission to leave, and I've looked at a lot. I've heard of people talking to their minister before leaving and taking maybe advice, but ultimately, the individual makes the choice and talks to the receiving group. And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?

As dzheremi pointed out, we may be talking about two different things here.

You seem to be talking about someone leaving Catholicism (whether for Orthodoxy or for something else). In that case, certainly they would not receive permission from their old bishop to do so.

When I said "transfer to a different jurisdiction" I meant within the Catholic Church. I was responding to podkarpatska's post:

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

(P.S. On the other hand, maybe we are talking about the same thing, given your last sentence:
And if it is so unified, why should that even be an issue?
If so, my apologies for needless clarifications.  :-\  :))
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 21, 2013, 09:04:03 AM
dzheremi and Anastasia1,

After posting a little while ago, it occurred to me to ask: Is your objection actually to the fact that we (Catholics) have overlapping jurisdictions? (I may be pulling that question out of somewhere; but I figure it's better to ask than to "assume".)

I'm not sure that's what Peter J is talking about though, Anastasia. If I remember correctly, to transfer to another church within the RC communion (rather than just showing up, I suppose) is a matter of canonical enrollment, so that you would be counted as a member of X (sui juris) church from there on out, rather than whatever church you were coming from (e.g., Latin Catholic transfers to the Maronite Church, thereby becoming Maronite 'officially', presumably after practicing at a Maronite Church for a while beforehand). It is a weird concept from an Orthodox perspective (the idea that you should have to officially "switch" to be a part of a particular church...to paraphrase what you wrote, if all share the same faith, why the switch?), but hey...one of many, right?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: dzheremi on February 22, 2013, 12:08:01 AM
I don't recall writing about objections, only about the practice of canonical transfers of enrollment or whatever you call them. Y'know, a Latin becomes a Maronite, or a Syro-Malabar becomes a Latin or whatever. That seems odd to me because if I as a Coptic Orthodox person were to approach a bishop about becoming Armenian Orthodox, I would be told no. There's no reason for it, since we're the same Church anyway, and there's nothing to stop me from going to an Armenian Church and receiving there. We Orthodox have overlapping jurisdictions, too, though that's not really how it's supposed to be. But we're definitely not supposed to decide at some point "I'm sick of being Coptic; I want to be Tewahedo now" or something. This idea that we could "transfer" from one Church to another is odd. I was baptized Coptic Orthodox and God-willing I'll die Coptic Orthodox, even if that happens while I'm attending an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 22, 2013, 08:42:09 AM
There's no reason for it, since we're the same Church anyway, and there's nothing to stop me from going to an Armenian Church and receiving there.

Well, I won't deny that I can see the similarity. Indeed we (Catholics) can go to any Catholic church (whether Latin (whether Roman, Ambrosian, Bragan, etc), Maronite, UGCC, etc). That certainly doesn't require a canonical transfer.

I also see now that I misunderstood your objection (and possibly Anastasia1's). So I'm glad to understand now what you're saying, although I don't agree with it.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 22, 2013, 04:05:04 PM
I wonder if what we're seeing here isn't an example of the old "Any stick is good enough to beat Catholics with".   :-\
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: dzheremi on February 22, 2013, 05:16:06 PM
Who's we? You got a mouse in your pocket, Peter J? Nobody's beating up on your church just by saying what you doesn't make sense from an outsider's perspective. The same could be said about Orthodoxy from an RC perspective. We are, after all, not the same.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 22, 2013, 06:07:39 PM
Who's we? You got a mouse in your pocket, Peter J? Nobody's beating up on your church just by saying what you doesn't make sense from an outsider's perspective. The same could be said about Orthodoxy from an RC perspective. We are, after all, not the same.

I didn't object to either you or podkarpatska saying that what we do doesn't make sense. Rather, my point is that your reasons are opposite each other. podkarpatska said:

An non-Catholic is free to convert to the Catholic Church through any of the 23 Churches available. If one is already Catholic and wish to switch to a Catholic Church of another rite, one needs to make a formal request to do so through the bishop of the Church in which one currently pratices the faith, and to the bishop of the Church one intends to switch to. I believe this is called a "change in canonical enrollment".

I never could understand these canon laws beyond what appears obvious to the non-Catholic. If the various 'churches' are indeed sui generis and all rites are 'equal' in the eyes of the 'Mother Church' of Rome, why is this necessary unless it is intended to promote the supremacy of the Latin Rite? Just another reason why many of us and our forebearers returned to Orthodoxy.

then you said that it doesn't make sense that a Catholic can get permission to switch churches, period.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: dzheremi on February 22, 2013, 06:35:07 PM
I don't really see those as being opposite. It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal. What I am saying is something different, namely that if you are Catholic and all rites are equal, why do you need to "switch" in the first place to be a part of another church? I could go to live in Armenia for some reason, and I would be under the bishop of wherever it is I reside. It would not make a difference that I'm Coptic Orthodox and not Armenian. (This is how it SHOULD be, anyway, but of course in places like Lebanon, the Copts established a church despite there already being Armenian churches in the area...I don't know if there were transportation issues or what.)

Rather, what I have seen (admittedly on the internet, as I'm not longer interacting with people in Catholic churches in real life) of this phenomenon as concerns transfers from one Catholic Church to another is a lot of disaffected Latins deciding they would rather be Byzantines, and hence changing churches/rites/whatever because of their personal disgust for the Latin rite or their personal love of the Byzantine rite. That's what I meant to address in my post. We don't become members of other churches just because we decide we don't like the one we're in. When I first moved here to NM, we had Ethiopians worshiping with us in the Coptic Church, and apparently before I was here we had Armenians, as well. If you want to be OO here (or already are), you worship in the Coptic church that's already here. Of course, many larger places have many different kinds of churches that people can go to, but from what I've been told this is not preferable (it's understandable, it's reality, but it's not preferable), as it tends to create a situation in which the Ethiopians stick together, and the Copts stick together, and the _____ stick together, and as a result are isolated from each other along ethnic/cultural lines (taken to its extreme, this can become phyletism, wherein people not of X background are not welcome in a particular church).
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: JoeS2 on February 22, 2013, 06:38:20 PM

Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 22, 2013, 10:15:54 PM
Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.

I think you're misreading Papist's statement. He didn't say that an Eastern Catholic needs a canonical transfer to attend a Latin parish, or vice versa.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 22, 2013, 10:24:13 PM
It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal.

You realize, of course, that Papist made a point of explaining that it is "a two-way street"?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: dzheremi on February 22, 2013, 10:30:57 PM
And you realize that I was summarizing what I got out of Podkarpatska's post (which I hadn't read before you pointed it out, and may not even be understanding properly), and not making any sort of statement of my own?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on February 22, 2013, 11:26:08 PM
And you realize that I was summarizing what I got out of Podkarpatska's post (which I hadn't read before you pointed it out, and may not even be understanding properly), and not making any sort of statement of my own?

Well, yes I do. Thanks for asking. :)
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: JoeS2 on February 23, 2013, 07:18:13 PM
It seems like Podkarpatska is saying that to force a Roman Catholic who wants to be a different kind of Catholic to obtain permission from his Latin overseers to do so doesn't make them seem very equal.

You realize, of course, that Papist made a point of explaining that it is "a two-way street"?

If its all Catholic there is no "two way street", its all on the same block.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: choy on February 23, 2013, 07:56:55 PM

Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.

That is the problem with a communion of Churches with different traditions.  The Canonical Enrollment is meant to prevent married Roman Catholic men from showing up en masse at Ukrainian, Melkite, Ruthenian, etc., seminaries seeking to be ordained into the Eastern Rite.  Of course that happens still but because it is not automatic there is usually a long process of transfer and belonging to the Eastern Rite before the bishop would even consider accepting your transfer.

Other than ordination, there is really no bar to attending another ritual Church.  Just go and attend.  I attended the Ukrainian Catholic Church for over 2 years before converting to Orthodoxy.  My 1 year old son was admitted to Communion and then when our daughter was born she was baptized, chrismated and communed in the Ukrainian-Byzantine Rite.  Canonically we're still Romans.  Transfers are really only for men who'd like to be ordained.  Other than that, some just seek it as a formality.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on August 01, 2013, 02:37:06 PM
I apologize in advance if this question has been asked and answered before (I don't think it has) ...

Does anyone have any theories as to why there are so (relatively) few Oriental Catholics?

(Note: I mean "Oriental Catholics" in the restrictive sense of Catholic churches that have corresponding Oriental Orthodox churches, not the more inclusive sense of Eastern Catholics who aren't Greek/Byzantine, or the even more inclusive sense of all Eastern Catholics.)
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on August 07, 2013, 02:09:06 PM
Anyone have any thoughts about ^^ that?
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 07, 2013, 02:44:03 PM
Anyone have any thoughts about ^^ that?

I've never really thought of it, so not really. 

How successful were Roman Catholic missions in "EO" regions as opposed to "OO" regions?  In India, the first Eastern Catholics were the Syro-Malabar Catholics.  Their liturgy has been all over the place, going from Eastern rite to Roman rite translated into Syriac back to Eastern rite with copious Latinisations (pre-Vatican II) to Eastern rite with copious Latinisations (post-Vatican II).  The Syro-Malankara Catholics have an entirely different history.  But in both cases, their jurisdiction was limited to "traditional territories".  Any pastoral ministry outside those very limited boundaries had to be conducted under the Roman aegis, using the Roman rite, etc., even if the people doing the work were Eastern Catholics.  And this didn't seem to bother anyone.  I know of a Syro-Malabar religious priest, now deceased, who spent almost the entirety of his forty plus years as a priest within the Roman rite.  I also know a Syro-Malankara priest who is pastor of a large RC parish near to where I live...not sure how/when/if he manages to serve in his own tradition, or if it's even a big deal to him.   

I wonder if a fierce attachment to liturgical rite, autonomy, etc. among those in "EO" lands played a role in this.  My limited experience with "Oriental Catholics" is that they're "Catholic" (read: Papist) before anything else.  I don't think they'd be bothered too much if the Roman rite was imposed on them either from within or without.  Most of the ones I personally know are functionally Roman rite anyway.  If the sui iuris Churches were shut down and their members were all forced into the local RC dioceses, I don't think very many would fight over it.  The "Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics", on the other hand, seem to identify more with being Eastern rather than "Catholic", no matter how many Latinisations they accepted/adopted in order to distinguish themselves as "Catholic".  Perhaps the "Byzantine Rite" needed to be promoted more heavily among the Eastern Catholics in order to keep them within the Roman communion, while the "Oriental Rites" were not in as much danger of defecting. 

Totally conjecture, so I could be wrong, but there it is.         
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2013, 11:12:28 AM
Interesting.

Thanks. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Eurasian on October 31, 2013, 10:43:53 AM
Changes in canonical enrollement are a two-way street. An Eastern Catholic must request a change in canonical enrollement if such an Eastern Catholic wants to become Latin. From what I understand, these rules exist in order to protect Eastern Chuches, so that their traditions remain a part of the Catholic communion and do not die out.

If it's all Catholic whats the difference?  Why any need for approval to switch from a Roman based faith to an eastern based faith?  Just go to an Eastern Catholic church and start attending regularly.... Will you be excommunicated for this act?  I don't think so.

I think you're misreading Papist's statement. He didn't say that an Eastern Catholic needs a canonical transfer to attend a Latin parish, or vice versa.

You don't need a canonical transfer to receive communion at an Eastern parish as a Latin, or vice versa. The different sui iuris churches have somewhat different church disciplines, though, for example regarding fasting, holy days of obligation, marriage and ordination, etc. Your canonical enrollment determines which disciplines are binding on you. There are rules about canonical transfers to prevent cherry picking or transferring for trivial reasons. It's more about maintaining disciplines (both Eastern and Western) than anything else. That is at least how I understand it.
Title: Re: Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches & Rites
Post by: Dominika on December 27, 2015, 06:45:24 PM
I don't want to start a separate thread, so I've chosen this one.

I've found a video from Nativity Coptic Catholic Liturgy and would like to know any differences from the original eg. Orthodox rite.

What I notice is:
1. The byzantine headgear of the patriarch
2. No iconostasis
3. Gregorian date of the feast
4. Much more Arabic than Coptic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGHV-8EOKwo