The Ukrainian "Greek-Catholic" Church recently elected a new Major Archbishop, and rumors were swirling that he would ask the Pope for the title of "Patriarch" though this apparently didn't actually happen when they met.
I am ambivalent about this, frankly, I could go either way. However, it might help my readers to understand a bit about the "genealogical" classifications of the Eastern Catholic churches. I hope this outline that I found somewhere once is comprehensible (corresponding categories are in corresponding fonts):
I am ambivalent about this, frankly, I could go either way. However, it might help my readers to understand a bit about the "genealogical" classifications of the Eastern Catholic churches. I hope this outline that I found somewhere once is comprehensible (corresponding categories are in corresponding fonts):
RITES AND SUI JURIS CHURCHES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
---WESTERN RITES
------Roman Catholic Church-Papal
---------ROMAN ORIGIN
------------Roman Rite
----------------Novus Ordo (“Ordinary Form” since 1970)
----------------Old Rite (“Extraordinary Form”)
----------------Anglican Use (Allowed for converts from Anglicanism.)
----------------Zaire Use
----------------Religious Order Uses (most orders have largely adopted
---------------the Novus Ordo, though the traditional uses are still
---------------occasionally said.)
------------------Benedictine Use
------------------Carthusian Use
------------------Cistercian Use
------------------Capuchin Use
------------------Carmelite Use
------------------Dominican Use
------------------Franciscan Use
------------------Praemonstratensian Use
------------------Servite Use
------------Ancient Suppressed Latin Rites and Usages
----------------English Usages
------------------Sarum Use
------------------Durham Use
------------------York Use
------------------Lincoln Use
------------------Bangor Use
------------------Hereford Use
----------------Cologne Use (Use of Cologne, Germany)
----------------Lyonese Rite (Rite of Lyons, France)
----------------Nidaros Use (Use of Norway)
----------------Uppsala Use (Use of Sweden)
----------------Aquileian Rite (Rite of Aquileia, Italy)
----------------The Beneventan Rite (Rite of Benevento, Italy)
----------------North African Rite
---------GALLICAN ORIGIN (possibly ultimately of Antiochian origin)
------------Ambrosian Rite (Rite of Milan, Italy)
------------Bragan Rite (Rite of Braga, Portugal)
------------Mozarabic Rite (Rite of Toledo, Spain)
------------Ancient Supressed Rites and Usages
----------------Hispano-Gallican Rites
----------------Celtic Rites
The East
---ANTIOCHIAN ORIGIN
------EAST SYRIAN RITE
---------CHALDEAN TRADITION
------------Chaldean Catholic Church-Minor Patriarchal
---------MALABARESE TRADITION
------------Syro-Malabar Catholic Church-Major Arch-Episcopal
----------------Northern Usage
----------------Knanaite/“Southist” Usage
------WEST SYRIAN RITE
---------SYRIAC TRADITION
------------Syriac Catholic Church-Major Patriarchal
---------MALANKARESE TRADITION
------------Syro-Malankara Catholic Church-Major Arch-Episcopal
------MARONITE RITE (of West Syrian Origin)
------------Maronite Catholic Church-Major Patriarchal
---ALEXANDRIAN ORIGIN
------ALEXANDRIAN RITE
---------COPTIC TRADITION
------------Coptic Catholic Church-Major Patriarchal
---------ABYSSINIAN GE’EZ TRADITION
------------Ethiopian Catholic Church-Metropolitan Arch-Episcopal
---CONSTANTINOPOLITAN ORIGIN (possibly ultimately of Antiochian
---origin through Cappadocian influence)
------ARMENIAN RITE (of Byzantine-Slavic Origin)
---------Armenian Catholic Church-Minor Patriarchal
------BYZANTINE RITE
---------BYZANTINE-GREEK TRADITION
------------Albanian Recension
---------------Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church-Episcopal
------------Greek Recension
---------------Greek Byzantine Catholic Church-Episcopal
------------Italo-Greek Recension
---------------The Exarchic Abbey and Territorial Monastery of Santa
---------------Maria di Grottaferrata degli Italo-Grieco-Episcopal
------------Italo-Albanian Recension
---------------The Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanesi-Episcopal
---------------The Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi-Episcopal
------------Melkite Recension
---------------Melkite Greek-Catholic Church-Major Patriarchal
------------Romanian Recension
---------------Romanian Church United With Rome-Major Arch-Episcopal
------------Georgian Recension
---------------Byzantine Georgians-not a Church sui iuris
---------BYZANTINE-SLAVIC TRADITION
------------Belarussian Recension
---------------Belarussian Greek-Catholic Church-Without hierarchy
------------Bulgarian Recension
---------------Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church-Episcopal
------------Croatian Recension
---------------Croatian Byzantine Catholic Church-Episcopal
---------------Byzantine Serbians-not a Church sui iuris
---------------Byzantine Montenegrins-not a Church sui iuris
------------Macedonian Recension
---------------Macedonian Byzantine Catholic Church-Episcopal
------------Hungarian Recension
---------------Hungarian Greek-Catholic Church-Episcopal
------------Russian Recension
---------------Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow for the Russian
---------------Byzantines-Without hierarchy (both Old and New usages)
---------------Apostolic Exarchate of Harbin for Russian Byzantines
---------------and All Oriental Rite Catholics in China-Without
---------------hierarchy
------------Ruthenian Recension
---------------Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church in the
---------------Diaspora-Metropolitan Arch-Episcopal
---------------The Eparchy of Mukacheve for the Byzantine Ruthenian
---------------Catholics in the Ukraine-Episcopal
---------------Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic-Episcopal
------------Slovakian Recension
---------------Slovak Byzantine Catholic
---------------Church-Metropolitan Arch-Episcopal
------------Ukrainian Recension
---------------Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church-Major Arch-Episcopal
------------Slovenian Recension
---------------Byzantine Slovenians-not a Church sui iuris
As you can see, in the smaller Mixed-case Font in Bold are the separate sui juris churches or jurisdictions (as well as several groups that lack a jurisdictional framework, but which could conceivably evolve into sui juris churches someday). Certain jurisdictions are accidentally technically separate and sui juris (having no higher uniting authority below the Pope) but really may be considered as one church; if you count the three Italo-Byzantine jurisdictions, the three Ruthenian jurisdictions, and the two Russian jurisdictions as practically speaking only one church each like this, that is where you get the commonly cited number of there being 23 Catholic churches in communion with the Pope.
So, the basic division that can be made, of course, is West/East. The entire West constitutes one sui juris church, one patriarchate under the Pope, although the West has "ceremonial" patriarchs of Jerusalem, Venice, Lisbon, the East Indies (at Goa), and the West Indies (though this last has been vacant for decades). There were formerly "ceremonial" Latin Rite Eastern patriarchs (of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria) as ornaments of the papal court (it was actually these, and not the actual Eastern versions, who were assigned the corresponding "Patriarchal" Basilicas at Rome) from the era of the Fourth Crusade, but these were incredibly offensive historically, and were thankfully abolished. A few others ceremonial Western patriarchates have existed in history (like Carthage, Grado, Aquileia), but they are long defunct.
The Eastern churches can further be divided under the headers of the traditional four other patriarchal sees in addition to Rome: Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, (and, it might be argued, Jerusalem; but that's controversial). The next division after this in classifying the Eastern Catholic churches would be into the Rites or ritual families proper. While the West is one jurisdiction with several rites and usages, in the East it's the other way around: there can be several sui juris churches within one rite.
There are six (or, arguably, seven) Eastern Rites as generally classified. From Antioch are the West Syriac who have their patriarch at Antioch itself, East Syriac who have their patriarch at Babylon, and Maronite who are also at Antioch, though I've always thought it might "make sense" (though these things never do perfectly) to associate the Maronites with Jerusalem (which is the only one of the "Big Five" lacking its own Rite) rather than having so many churches centered at Antioch. From Alexandria is the Coptic Rite with the patriarch at Alexandria itself. And from Constantinople are the Armenian with patriarch at Cilicia, and the Byzantines whose current ranking church is the Melkite at, yet again, Antioch.
Within many of these Rites, especially under Constantinople, there can be more than one sui juris church. However, you will note that only the ranking sui juris church in each Rite has, in the current Catholic system, the designation of "patriarch." The others are of various other ranks of hierarchal precedence (without hierarchy, episcopal, metropolitan arch-episcopal, or major arch-episcopal) based mainly on size; though I've often thought it might be appropriate to "level" all the non-patriarchal churches under a title like "arch-primate." However, the model seems to be based on something like the Holy Roman Empire where, based on importance, certain principalities under the Empire were Kingdoms, others were Archduchies, others were simply Duchies, others were Counties, etc, even if they were not suzerain to any higher levels other than the emperor.
Again, in the current Catholic "logic" of Eastern Patriarchs, only the ranking sui juris church in each Rite has the designation of "patriarch." For example, the only current Byzantine Catholic church of patriarchal rank is the Melkite at Antioch. It is the precedential church within that Rite and thus has the patriarchal dignity. However, there is an unspoken implication in this logic that, were Constantinople (of the Orthodox) to reunite, then it would clearly be the ranking church among the Byzantines (instead of the reduplication of Antioch).
In the current system there are six Western Patriarchs (the Pope included) and six Eastern. This creates a symbolically appropriate "apostolic" college of Twelve total (seven "real" and five ceremonial), though West Indies is virtually defunct. It will also be noted that patriarchs located at one of the "Big Five" cities have the designation "major" (including the ceremonial Latin patriarch of Jerusalem), but the others, both "real" (namely, Babylon and Cilicia) and purely ceremonial, are considered "minor."
Now, when it comes to the Ukrainian Catholic Church, there is a good argument that the "Byzantine-Slav" and "Byzantine-Greek" traditions should be recognized as two separate Rites in some sense. And thus that the ranking church among the Byzantine-Slavs (which would indeed be the Ukrainians it seems) should be given the title of Minor Patriarch (of Kiev assumably). So I wouldn't be in theory opposed; the symbolic number of twelve patriarchs could even be maintained easily by getting rid of the West Indies title once and for all officially (or, more complicatedly, transferring the Maronites to Jerusalem and then getting rid of the Latin patriarch there).
However, one must consider how ecumenically sensitive this is. Because, if we were to ever re-unite with the Orthodox, the Russians (only a tiny church among the Catholics) would clearly be the ranking church among the Byzantine-Slavs, Moscow would obviously be the "patriarchal" church of the Byzantine-Slavic Rite in that sense. Do we really want to complicate things with even another patriarchal title?
Of course, the patriarchal dignity has taken on canonical implications beyond just being the ranking church in a Rite. And, of course, why couldn't the East have non-ranking patriarchates too, in the sense of major archbishops given the title, insignia, rank, and some or all of those prerogatives yet without necessarily being the ranking sui juris church within a given Rite (like the ceremonial Western patriarchs)?
In fact, this situation already exists among the Orthodox. The Orthodox Patriarchates largely line up with the Catholic, though there are overlapping claims because of the Oriental Orthodox, etc. But in Orthodoxy, there are also some churches which are not the precedential seat of unique Rites (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) that have been granted the title "Patriarch" because of autocephaly, though in reality they are more like just the Major Archbishop of a sui juris church in Eastern Catholic terms (again: among Catholics, the title "patriarch" in the East has thus far been reserved for the precedential church in a given ritual family, not merely for the highest form of autonomous jurisdiction).
Really, these Patriarchs are more like my "Arch-Primates" (or the term "Catholicos" also might be helpful) inasmuch as they are not the ranking church in a Rite. But that wouldn't have to be an "issue" in the case of reunion; they could certainly keep Patriarchal title. I mean, I sort of doubt, for example, that the Melkites' patriarchal status would be revoked even if Constantinople were to return as the ranking church among the Byzantine-Greeks. Sometimes the elegant "logic" of theoretical and symbolic ideals must be sacrificed to realpolitik and diplomacy. It's not worth offending anyone just for the sake of limiting the number of patriarchs to twelve or to maintain the abstract artificial principle of the title signifying only the ranking church of a given Eastern Rite.
So, basically, I think a patriarchate for the Ukrainians wouldn't be terrible. It would make sense if the Byzantine-Slavs are considered a separate "Rite" and, even though Moscow would be the ranking church in the case of reunion, that's no reason the title and prerogatives of "Patriarch" couldn't be conceded to the Ukrainians anyway (as they are to the Romanians and Bulgarians and Serbians among the Orthodox, even though those aren't the ranking churches in any separate Rite, as well as to ceremonial patriarchs in the West). But the question really boils down to whether it would offend Moscow, currently, too much to be worth doing. I'd rather think it would and that the Pope is thus wise not to rock the boat at this point.
So, the basic division that can be made, of course, is West/East. The entire West constitutes one sui juris church, one patriarchate under the Pope, although the West has "ceremonial" patriarchs of Jerusalem, Venice, Lisbon, the East Indies (at Goa), and the West Indies (though this last has been vacant for decades). There were formerly "ceremonial" Latin Rite Eastern patriarchs (of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria) as ornaments of the papal court (it was actually these, and not the actual Eastern versions, who were assigned the corresponding "Patriarchal" Basilicas at Rome) from the era of the Fourth Crusade, but these were incredibly offensive historically, and were thankfully abolished. A few others ceremonial Western patriarchates have existed in history (like Carthage, Grado, Aquileia), but they are long defunct.
The Eastern churches can further be divided under the headers of the traditional four other patriarchal sees in addition to Rome: Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, (and, it might be argued, Jerusalem; but that's controversial). The next division after this in classifying the Eastern Catholic churches would be into the Rites or ritual families proper. While the West is one jurisdiction with several rites and usages, in the East it's the other way around: there can be several sui juris churches within one rite.
There are six (or, arguably, seven) Eastern Rites as generally classified. From Antioch are the West Syriac who have their patriarch at Antioch itself, East Syriac who have their patriarch at Babylon, and Maronite who are also at Antioch, though I've always thought it might "make sense" (though these things never do perfectly) to associate the Maronites with Jerusalem (which is the only one of the "Big Five" lacking its own Rite) rather than having so many churches centered at Antioch. From Alexandria is the Coptic Rite with the patriarch at Alexandria itself. And from Constantinople are the Armenian with patriarch at Cilicia, and the Byzantines whose current ranking church is the Melkite at, yet again, Antioch.
Within many of these Rites, especially under Constantinople, there can be more than one sui juris church. However, you will note that only the ranking sui juris church in each Rite has, in the current Catholic system, the designation of "patriarch." The others are of various other ranks of hierarchal precedence (without hierarchy, episcopal, metropolitan arch-episcopal, or major arch-episcopal) based mainly on size; though I've often thought it might be appropriate to "level" all the non-patriarchal churches under a title like "arch-primate." However, the model seems to be based on something like the Holy Roman Empire where, based on importance, certain principalities under the Empire were Kingdoms, others were Archduchies, others were simply Duchies, others were Counties, etc, even if they were not suzerain to any higher levels other than the emperor.
Again, in the current Catholic "logic" of Eastern Patriarchs, only the ranking sui juris church in each Rite has the designation of "patriarch." For example, the only current Byzantine Catholic church of patriarchal rank is the Melkite at Antioch. It is the precedential church within that Rite and thus has the patriarchal dignity. However, there is an unspoken implication in this logic that, were Constantinople (of the Orthodox) to reunite, then it would clearly be the ranking church among the Byzantines (instead of the reduplication of Antioch).
In the current system there are six Western Patriarchs (the Pope included) and six Eastern. This creates a symbolically appropriate "apostolic" college of Twelve total (seven "real" and five ceremonial), though West Indies is virtually defunct. It will also be noted that patriarchs located at one of the "Big Five" cities have the designation "major" (including the ceremonial Latin patriarch of Jerusalem), but the others, both "real" (namely, Babylon and Cilicia) and purely ceremonial, are considered "minor."
Now, when it comes to the Ukrainian Catholic Church, there is a good argument that the "Byzantine-Slav" and "Byzantine-Greek" traditions should be recognized as two separate Rites in some sense. And thus that the ranking church among the Byzantine-Slavs (which would indeed be the Ukrainians it seems) should be given the title of Minor Patriarch (of Kiev assumably). So I wouldn't be in theory opposed; the symbolic number of twelve patriarchs could even be maintained easily by getting rid of the West Indies title once and for all officially (or, more complicatedly, transferring the Maronites to Jerusalem and then getting rid of the Latin patriarch there).
However, one must consider how ecumenically sensitive this is. Because, if we were to ever re-unite with the Orthodox, the Russians (only a tiny church among the Catholics) would clearly be the ranking church among the Byzantine-Slavs, Moscow would obviously be the "patriarchal" church of the Byzantine-Slavic Rite in that sense. Do we really want to complicate things with even another patriarchal title?
Of course, the patriarchal dignity has taken on canonical implications beyond just being the ranking church in a Rite. And, of course, why couldn't the East have non-ranking patriarchates too, in the sense of major archbishops given the title, insignia, rank, and some or all of those prerogatives yet without necessarily being the ranking sui juris church within a given Rite (like the ceremonial Western patriarchs)?
In fact, this situation already exists among the Orthodox. The Orthodox Patriarchates largely line up with the Catholic, though there are overlapping claims because of the Oriental Orthodox, etc. But in Orthodoxy, there are also some churches which are not the precedential seat of unique Rites (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) that have been granted the title "Patriarch" because of autocephaly, though in reality they are more like just the Major Archbishop of a sui juris church in Eastern Catholic terms (again: among Catholics, the title "patriarch" in the East has thus far been reserved for the precedential church in a given ritual family, not merely for the highest form of autonomous jurisdiction).
Really, these Patriarchs are more like my "Arch-Primates" (or the term "Catholicos" also might be helpful) inasmuch as they are not the ranking church in a Rite. But that wouldn't have to be an "issue" in the case of reunion; they could certainly keep Patriarchal title. I mean, I sort of doubt, for example, that the Melkites' patriarchal status would be revoked even if Constantinople were to return as the ranking church among the Byzantine-Greeks. Sometimes the elegant "logic" of theoretical and symbolic ideals must be sacrificed to realpolitik and diplomacy. It's not worth offending anyone just for the sake of limiting the number of patriarchs to twelve or to maintain the abstract artificial principle of the title signifying only the ranking church of a given Eastern Rite.
So, basically, I think a patriarchate for the Ukrainians wouldn't be terrible. It would make sense if the Byzantine-Slavs are considered a separate "Rite" and, even though Moscow would be the ranking church in the case of reunion, that's no reason the title and prerogatives of "Patriarch" couldn't be conceded to the Ukrainians anyway (as they are to the Romanians and Bulgarians and Serbians among the Orthodox, even though those aren't the ranking churches in any separate Rite, as well as to ceremonial patriarchs in the West). But the question really boils down to whether it would offend Moscow, currently, too much to be worth doing. I'd rather think it would and that the Pope is thus wise not to rock the boat at this point.
22 comments:
This is the first I've ever heard of of the Zaire usage. As for the Rite of Lyons, I think it is still used occasionally.
I had no idea of the sheer ammount of rites that were supressed (I'm guessing at Trent?)! Where did you find all this information?
The Maronites are better classified as a Use and not their own Rite (at least as I see it). The Maronites are Western Syriac, yes, but they have no unique Liturgical form of their own.
Here is some data on the subject: http://books.google.com/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=maronites+have+no+liturgy+of+their+own&source=bl&ots=CWwxSmMmyK&sig=wuDxLL5BYm6Jskb-kmM3qKcBa_A&hl=en&ei=ThOfTcOzDeux0QHdrNiVBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=maronites%20have%20no%20liturgy%20of%20their%20own&f=false
Likewise, The Rite of Jerusalem for all intents and purposes would be The Western Syriac Rite. Even moreso what would later evolve into The Melkite Ritual. The history of The Melkite Church is complicated, but as such they're an example of The Byzantinification of a Church following The Council of Chalcedon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church
http://stgeorge-melkite.org/images/lectures/1/chart.png
http://stgeorge-melkite.org/lecture01.html
In terms of the Maronites constituting a separate Rite, the Catechism says:
"1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In 'faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.'"
This shows the equality of all rites (something discussed in the comments on the previous post).
It also shows that the Church considers there to be officially these 7 rites currently. Whether they are actually separate "rites" in a liturgical-historical sense, I can't say, I'm no expert on Eastern liturgy. But they do constitute a recognized category of the Eastern church when it comes to dividing them for purposes like assigning patriarchs one-to-a-rite.
If the Greek and Slavic were recognized as two separate "Rites" in this sense, then there would be 8.
Perhaps, someday, Rites can be developed for North America (Mexico), South America (Brazil), China, and Japan & Oceania. And then the 4 remaining "ceremonial" patriarchates could be transferred to those locales, so that there would be Twelve Patriarchs for Twelve Rites with a distribution roughly dividing up the world geographically (and even corresponding to something like 12 imperial thornes!)
But. I'm getting away with myself; until things are carried to such a neatly logical conclusion, they seem to stand as I have described.
"Whether they are actually separate "rites" in a liturgical-historical sense, I can't say, I'm no expert on Eastern liturgy."
That is the point I was "debating". Namely the fact that Maronites claim that they have NO Orthodox counterpart. Historically speaking and liturgically speaking that wouldn't be true. As it were, they're merely Chalcedonian Western Syriac Christians along with The Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites (Technically speaking the latter two are the same Church/Ritual, but for clarity's sake I'll distinguish between their Orthodox and Catholic counterparts.). The Maronites remained Western Syriac whereas The Antiochian/Melkites (Chalcedonian) adopted The Byzantine Ritual with some slight remnants of their pre Syriac roots. As it stands, The Maronites are a portion of The Western Syriac Church that followed after St.Maroun (Hence Maronites) and never went into Schism. I don't recall all the details concerning St.Maroun, but that is the condensed form of it.
You're probably asking yourself, where I am going with this ? Well, as I mentioned before, Maronites really have no excuse in regard to the restoration of their liturgy given that they DO have an Orthodox counterpart. Sure their Use of The Western Syriac Liturgy (The form used in Eastern Iraq to be exact, which makes me wonder, wouldn't they be Chaldean then ?)evolved into a separate Rite (Organic development FTW !!!) and consequently was Latinized (sigh*, I'm okay with cross pollination.), but it seems unfair for them to claim they don't have an Orthodox counterpart. I like to nitpick :P
"If the Greek and Slavic were recognized as two separate "Rites" in this sense, then there would be 8."
EXACTLY ! That is why I took issue with Maronites being classed distinctly from The Syriacs.
"Perhaps, someday, Rites can be developed for North America (Mexico), South America (Brazil), China, and Japan & Oceania. And then the 4 remaining "ceremonial" patriarchates could be transferred to those locales, so that there would be Twelve Patriarchs for Twelve Rites with a distribution roughly dividing up the world geographically (and even corresponding to something like 12 imperial thornes!)"
North America adapting a Mexican Rite... Oh boy. I don't think many would be to keen on that. Then again, those Uses that were suppressed, but never condemned amongst The Missions, could in fact be given freer usage to organically develop into their own Rite.
Once upon a time, Brazil had The Bragan Rite/Use (or so I was informed). It was later suppressed in favour of The Roman Rite (That is what happened in Spain with The Mozarabic/Visigothic Rite. Political ties FTW !!!). As it were, The Mozarabic Rite seems the most natural for Central and South America and The Caribbean given that remnants of that Liturgy survive in The Roman Rite (I'm referring to those practices associated with Rituals OUTSIDE of Liturgy (Confession etc.). Then again, I'm not sure how that would work.
The Jesuits attempted to forge a Chinese Rite, that got slammed down by Rome via The Dominicans in Japan. Sadly, policy changed when it was TOO late and The Chinese found The Church to be a fickle entity (TADA! This is why The Church in China is the way it is !). Look up the Chinese Rites controversy if you are interested.
I actually got into an argument with a Trad the other day concerning this VERY issue. I said that contextualization of The Gospel does not mean compromising dogma and doctrine, but rather is a NATURAL and ORGANIC part of evangelization. You'll either have culturally castrated individuals who merely pay lip service to The Gospel OR you could build upon previous knowledge (ie baptizing those elements of the culture) and utilizing for the evangelatory mission of The Church (SAVE SOULS !!!). XD
Personally, I think it would make more sense for some variant of The Syriac Liturgy to be that of Asia given the Patriarchs authority over ALL The East. It seems superflous to have that title and it not mean anything. The same is true of Africa and The Alexandrian Ritual. The Coptic Patriarch is after head of ALL Africa, so why not ? The Coptics have actually missionized a few African nations with some level of success, perhaps when they're under Rome once again (May it be soon !) things will go as they should.
I do wonder how The Aleut Orthodox will be handled. We discussed it before and I to hope they can remain their own sui juris Church, be we'll see.
"The Syriac Liturgy to be that of Asia given the Patriarchs authority over ALL The East. It seems superflous to have that title and it not mean anything."
Well, I think what it is supposed to mean is that the Patriarch has authority over all members of his Rite throughout the East.
Obviously, for example, the Melkite patriarch has "patriarch of Alexandria and Jerusalem" in his title, even though he is NOT the "primary" patriarch of those cities. But he is patriarch of any Melkites, specifically, who may be living there.
Fair enough, but I was thinking in terms of historical considerations. I'm not saying The Roman Ritual isn't relevant to those in Africa (or elsewhere), but given the history of say Egypt and Ethiopia with their surrounding neighbors, it just makes sense that they would fair better in that regard.
Think about it, Buddhism begins in India and makes its way to China. There is already a discourse there between the regions, historically and culturally speaking. Why not do so this time with The True Faith ? On that note, why in the world did they attempt an Indian style Novus Ordo ? They attempted to recreate the wheel, when the Syro Malabar and Malankara had already previously done that. It just looked BIZARRE. I've seen Traditionalist attempts to do the same thing in India as well. While I applaud the effort, something about it makes me think it is meant to communicate that there can be no Rite, but The Latin Rite in territories with already established Ritual Churches. We spoke about this once before. Most Catholics visiting nations with an indigenous Ritual never really go out there to explore The Church's OTHER Liturgical Traditions. If I recall correctly, you called it The Disneyfication of Liturgy. I'm not sure if that is precisely how you termed it, but it makes sense. People travel to foreign lands, but remain at the resort so they never have to GASP be in contact with the "common people".
BTW, this is what I was referring to in reference to The Coptics evangelizing OTHER African nations:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EF5200DF85A5E882
I've been called "PC" for stating that the discourse employed is EQUALLY important when evangelizing. The Faith is Universal, that doesn't mean every Ritual is to every people. The truth of the matter is, The Rituals themselves are but expressions of that Universal character of The Faith. It is a pity when people quantify particular Ritual forms with The Faith.
I've heard that the so-called "Chinese rite" (i.e., Roman rite done in Classical Chinese) existed in Chinese expatriate communities in Europe as late as the 1940s.
@Kuiwon:
I'm referring more to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy
Particularly this portion of the article and everything after it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy#The_problem
@Who Am I
I am well aware of the Chinese Rite controversy. Had it not been for Pope Pius XII's decision in 1939 reversing many of the previous Popes' rulings, I might not even be Catholic today.
Coolness. Still it is a pity what a change in policy can do to The Faith of a people. People think Vatican II was the first change in policy, but there are indeed historic cases with the same results. Curiously, no one ever mentions those...
While I am on my soapbox here, THAT is what turned me off about Latin Rite Traditionalism, it actually came to me this morning as I was waking up. By THAT, I am referring to the various historic omissions that SOME Traditionalists make regarding The TRM. When you do more research into the subject and find conflicting data (Especially regarding historically SUCCESSFUL fusions of the hieratic vernacular WITH Latin in the context of The Liturgy.), you become an enemy of Tradition (AKA: A "Neo-con", "PC" etc.). I do sincerely believe that MOST are just ignorant of these things, but when a person gets hostile to the idea and refuses to acknowledge such a thing occurring, I question their priorities. It would make for a BETTER Traditionalism IF more Trads presented their case WITHOUT omitting those "inconvenient" details.
BTW, I would be most interested in learning more about the adaptation of Traditional Chinese Culture and Roman Rite Catholicism (particularly the use of hieratic Chinese in The Liturgy). My blog has a few examples of Mission Use liturgies like that, so it would be good to compare and possibly post it to my blog.
BTW the above comment is directed at you Kuiwon. But I should thank you for being the catalyst for my realizing WHY I grew away from Traditionalism. I don't despise The Liturgy (TRM) or the SINCERE people who wish to observe Traditionally, I do however ABHOR that character of Traditionalism where "inconvenient" TRUTHS are omitted. What exactly would be lost by admitting to them ?
@A Sinner: Did you understand what I meant regarding the distinction between The Syriacs and Maronites and how bizarre it is that the same isn't done between The Slavic and Greek language (Melkites and a few others being the exception) Byzantine Ritual Churches ? I just find it strange, that is all.
@Who Am I
The "Chinese rite" you speak of did not use "hieratic vernacular". Rather, it used Literary/Classical Chinese, the form of written Chinese used by literati even well into the early 20th century. It is very different from the modern day written Vernacular Chinese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Chinese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_vernacular_Chinese
But that is precisely what a hieratic tongue is, a HIGHER form of the vernacular. The same is true of Arabic. There is the Arabic spoken across many Arabic speaking nations and then there is Classical Arabic used for literature. The same is true of Hebrew, Old Church Slavonic etc.
Do you have a copy of this Liturgy ?
Yeah, I was about to say: "hieratic" MEANS the literary/"classical" form of a vernacular.
Classical Chinese isn't a "vernacular". "hieratic vernacular" would refer to "Written vernacular Chinese." The difference between written and spoken language in the Orient very large compared to English.
You can find the Mass in Classical Chinese at the Diocese of Hongkong archives: http://archives.catholic.org.hk/
@kuiwon:
I see what you're saying. Hieratic vernacular refers more to that which we English speakers (or any other language for that matter) would term proper English (ie English that conforms to the norms outlined by the grammatical constructions of our particular dialect (American vs. UK English etc.)). Whereas the vernacular is more akin to the vulgar (ie spoken by the people non standardized)form of the language, with the classical form being that employed for PARTICULAR texts (religious etc.).
I hope that makes sense. It's like Hebrew in that way. You have biblical/classical Hebrew employed for religious texts, standard modern Hebrew for newspapers and the like and then the stuff people speak on the streets and at home. LINGUISTIC REGISTERS FTW !!!
Kuiwon, is this it ?
http://archives.catholic.org.hk/Rare%20Books/FLS/index.htm
Wow, 1670 O.o
Ding ding ding !
Pre VII vernacular (hieratic/classical) translations of The Liturgy FTW !!!
Pius XII gave plenty of indults for Mass in the vernacular, so it's not as if it were a V2 product. Heck, even the EF in Croatia was in Church Slavonic, not Latin.
Well that is the point I am attempting to make. Many Traditionalists make the arguments that the use of the vernacular is an abuse and should be anathema. They insist that Latin and ONLY Latin should be employed for The Roman Liturgy. The truth of the matter is, what mattes first and foremost is FORM over language. That is The Eastern and Byzantine approach to Liturgy. The Slavs, Antiochians, Greeks etc. of The Byzantine Ritual all employ use of distinct Liturgical tongues, but are united through a common form with some organic developments particular to their church. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At this point, the indult for translation of The TRM into the classical/hieratic form of the vernacular language would actually be more prudent at this point. You can't just transition into Latin overnight, it has to be a gradual process.
I went to a Coptic Liturgy this past Sunday and was able to follow just fine. The language employed for Liturgy was Arabic (and I assume SOME Coptic) and sparse use of English. The hand missals were all written in Arabic, so there was no use for me trying to follow in them. However, I prayed when I needed to pray with them, because some things sound the same when they are intoned regardless of language. I really liked the experience I had this past Sunday.
But I digress, the point is, at this point THERE IS a middle way, either employ something like the vernacular with Latin as was the case within The Missions OR accurately translating The TRM in the hieratic/classical vernacular of the nation, whilst salvaging those redeemable qualities of The NO and organically adding them to The TRM.
Vernacular does not have to be a dirty word.
Post a Comment