Tradition!

[X_Protestant]

I was not raised with knowledge of Tradition being an element of Truth. My prayer now is to see, understand and embrace the Traditional Truth that is part of the pillars of the foundation of faith. :flex:

 

In my brief encounter getting up close & personal with becoming Catholic over the last month at times the vastness of the great unknown seems daunting. I keep reminding myself that it is one step at a time ~ just keep my eyes focused on the Truth that I do know. Relax and enjoy the present moment and don't worry about the rest. 

 

With that said, with a left turn in thought and what might seem like a contradictory statement; at the end of RCIA last night when it was opened up for questions somehow the conversation ended up being on other Catholic Rites.  Or at least I think that is what the conversation was about.  I got very lost, very quickly.  In communion / not in communion, East/West/Greek/Marian/Coptic/Russian/Anglican, legitimate / not legitimate, schism or not, ordinary... some are Catholic, but some are not? Even if they are recognized as Catholic whatever form you are, you can't participate in the Mass of another, or at least the Eucharist?  Does anyone know what I'm asking about here because this tangled web of words is about as clear as mud to me right now.  Any simple help to detangle this for me?

[Luigi]

I certainly can't explain the ins and outs of it, although it would be interesting if some ambitious member of the Phamily would put together a grahpic or chart or timeline or something.

 

Suffice it to say that, over the course of two millenia and the entire geography of the world, there have been some disagreements. Some more serious than others. The Church has wanted to remain "in communion" with everyone, but sometimes the disagreements were so serious that the Church had to say, "Now, that's just too far removed from what we believe."

 

If a church/rite/tradition believes that same things we do, but their rite celebrates it differently, you can probably go. If they don't believe the same things we do, then it doesn't matter how they celebrate - just can't go.

 

And in reality, those other rites are barely represented in the US. You might run into a couple of them, but not too many more than that.

[NotreDame]

When the orthodox split with Rome, not all split. Then some that split came back.  They retained their rites.  Sacraments are the same.  If you can go to communion at one, you can go to any of the others.

 

Ukranian is the rite I was from and they re-joined the church via the union of brest:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm

[Basilisa Marie]

Okay, lemme help get you started. 

 

Rites generally refers to a different kind of liturgy (worship). Most Catholics in the "west" are Roman Catholics, meaning (among other things) we follow the "Roman" or "Latin" rite.  Some groups are called Eastern Catholics, and they acknowledge the authority of the pope and have their own liturgical traditions - like Byzantine, Maronite, etc.  These groups also have some other different practices and cultural differences than Roman or Latins, but we're all part of the Catholic Church.  Basically, people who are obedient to the pope are Catholic. 

 

Then we have the Orthodox, aka Eastern Orthodox.  They're the ones that first broke away during the "Great Schism" of 1054, don't recognize the authority of the pope, and have a few other theological differences from us.  So when you hear Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox, those aren't Catholics. They have their own leaders, called patriarchs, many of whom claim a kind of succession from some of the other apostles, like we do Peter.

Now, you as a Roman Catholic can attend mass at an Eastern Catholic church and receive communion. You can go to an Eastern Orthodox liturgy as a guest, but it doesn't fulfill your Sunday obligation and you shouldn't receive communion (though there are exceptions). 

More recently, some Anglicans have decided that they want to join the Catholic Church, partly because of some decisions made by some of the Anglican higher-ups. Often you'll see whole Anglican parishes wanting to join. So the Church has figured out a way for them all to convert, and still retain much of their own liturgy. 

Additionally, there are some Catholics who don't recognize the authority of the pope (or a series of popes), and believe the "seat of Peter" is vacant, i.e. there isn't a real pope right now. These people are called sedevacantists, and they're in schism (separated) from the Catholic Church.  Often these people reject the Second Vatican Council.  There's a group called Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that you might have heard about. It rejects Vatican II (but I don't think they're sedevacantist? Someone clarify for me please), whose members are clergy and whose leadership is in schism with the Church.  But it's not sinful for lay people to attend mass with them, if they're looking for a traditional Latin liturgy (but again, some lay people have similar beliefs as their clergy, which are problematic - you can't reject Vatican II). Pope Benedict XVI worked really hard to try and get them back fully in union with the Church, but wasn't ever able to do it. 

I know that's kind of a lot, but generally speaking, you can know if someone's Catholic if they obey the pope. You can always visit another group's liturgy, and even participate to some degree (depending on the situation), but you can only receive communion at churches that are in union with the pope. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Additionally, there are some Catholics who don't recognize the authority of the pope (or a series of popes), and believe the "seat of Peter" is vacant, i.e. there isn't a real pope right now. These people are called sedevacantists, and they're in schism (separated) from the Catholic Church.  Often these people reject the Second Vatican Council.  There's a group called Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that you might have heard about. It rejects Vatican II (but I don't think they're sedevacantist? Someone clarify for me please), whose members are clergy and whose leadership is in schism with the Church.  But it's not sinful for lay people to attend mass with them, if they're looking for a traditional Latin liturgy (but again, some lay people have similar beliefs as their clergy, which are problematic - you can't reject Vatican II). Pope Benedict XVI worked really hard to try and get them back fully in union with the Church, but wasn't ever able to do it. 

 

The SSPX are not sedevacantist, and they are also not in schism strictly speaking.

[Basilisa Marie]

The SSPX are not sedevacantist, and they are also not in schism strictly speaking.

 

Thanks! And wikipedia told me this: 
 

 

 

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", stated on 22 December 2013 that the leaders of the Society are in schism.

[Nihil Obstat]

Thanks! And wikipedia told me this:

Wiki is inaccurate on that point. But it is an understandable mistake.

[PhuturePriest]

Wiki is inaccurate on that point. But it is an understandable mistake.

Can you explain why?

[Nihil Obstat]

Can you explain why?

Why it is wrong, or why it is understandable?

 

The word schism was definitely thrown around a lot. But over time, the consensus that emerged is that, while consecrating bishops without a mandate is a schismatic action, the fact that one completed a schismatic action does not in and of itself put them in schism per se. (Actually, I have heard arguments that the consecration also does not constitute a schismatic action, technically speaking, but rather a less serious act of disobedience, but I am not really qualified to assess that argument.) There has also been talk of a 'schismatic mentality', which is an imprecise term, but one which I agree with, that generally describes people who again, may not be in schism per se, but seem to be operating with that mindset and orientation, and it is dangerous.

 

The SSPX does officially accept the Pope and his authority. At least in a general sense. Some of their priests can be a bit wacky. But in general, according to what the Society stands for, they do accept the Pope. They just believe that the situation warrants disobedience at the moment.

 

I have heard rumours that if the SSPX continue in this way, Pope Francis might officially declare them to be in schism. Just a rumour mind you, but I do hope it does not come to that.

 

I was talking to my priest a couple weeks back about the Society, because I heard that he meets sometimes with the SSPX priests here in the city. He said that they really are not 'the enemy' for a faithful Catholic. They are not the people we should be spending our energies fighting against. I hope that attitude becomes more widespread in the future.

[X_Protestant]

BASILISA MARIE your explanation was helpful. Also the rest of discussion about schism. All enough to give me more of a general understanding that I was seeking. Not a subject at this time for me to dwell long on, but it does leave me more informed in the larger picture.

[Basilisa Marie]

BASILISA MARIE your explanation was helpful. Also the rest of discussion about schism. All enough to give me more of a general understanding that I was seeking. Not a subject at this time for me to dwell long on, but it does leave me more informed in the larger picture.

 

Sweet, glad we could help.   :)

 

Oh, and in case I wasn't clear, Latin and Roman are just two names for the same group. Us. :) 

Edited February 14, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[TheresaThoma]

Basillia Marie that was a great explanation!

 

Another thing to add which is more of a fun fact is that each of the rites is more or less tied to a particular early church/region. Which explains why the liturgy looks different (cultural differences when the liturgy was being developed) but they are still in communion.

One of the most common rites you will come across besides the Roman Rite is the Byzantine Rite which is absolutely beautiful. 

[Anastasia13]

Okay, lemme help get you started. 

 

Rites generally refers to a different kind of liturgy (worship). Most Catholics in the "west" are Roman Catholics, meaning (among other things) we follow the "Roman" or "Latin" rite.  Some groups are called Eastern Catholics, and they acknowledge the authority of the pope and have their own liturgical traditions - like Byzantine, Maronite, etc.  These groups also have some other different practices and cultural differences than Roman or Latins, but we're all part of the Catholic Church.  Basically, people who are obedient to the pope are Catholic. 

 

Then we have the Orthodox, aka Eastern Orthodox.  They're the ones that first broke away during the "Great Schism" of 1054, don't recognize the authority of the pope, and have a few other theological differences from us.  So when you hear Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox, those aren't Catholics. They have their own leaders, called patriarchs, many of whom claim a kind of succession from some of the other apostles, like we do Peter.

 

Then there is the other Orthodox, aka Oriental Orthodox. They and the Rome/Eastern Orthodox split at the Council of Chalcedon which took place in 451. It's now agreed my many that it was primarily a matter of translation (I think I read something about this in the Orthodox/Catholic joint statements). As I recall, Oriental Orthodox are no longer in a state of schism but are not yet in full communion with Rome. Oriental Orthodox are Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, and Indian Malankara. All other Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox.

 

As with the Eastern Orthodox, there are those who follow an Orthodox tradition but are in communion with Rome.

[SilentJoy]

I was not raised with knowledge of Tradition being an element of Truth. My prayer now is to see, understand and embrace the Traditional Truth that is part of the pillars of the foundation of faith. :flex:

 

In my brief encounter getting up close & personal with becoming Catholic over the last month at times the vastness of the great unknown seems daunting. I keep reminding myself that it is one step at a time ~ just keep my eyes focused on the Truth that I do know. Relax and enjoy the present moment and don't worry about the rest. 

 

With that said, with a left turn in thought and what might seem like a contradictory statement; at the end of RCIA last night when it was opened up for questions somehow the conversation ended up being on other Catholic Rites.  Or at least I think that is what the conversation was about.  I got very lost, very quickly.  In communion / not in communion, East/West/Greek/Marian/Coptic/Russian/Anglican, legitimate / not legitimate, schism or not, ordinary... some are Catholic, but some are not? Even if they are recognized as Catholic whatever form you are, you can't participate in the Mass of another, or at least the Eucharist?  Does anyone know what I'm asking about here because this tangled web of words is about as clear as mud to me right now.  Any simple help to detangle this for me?

Thanks for sharing! Wow, your RCIA group sounds like it may be more in-depth than mine was. Too in-depth, maybe? I'm sorry you were lost and confused.

I remember, after I was Confirmed, I was stressing a little over the fact that the different Rites practice things slightly differently (I think that Eastern Rites have more frequent fasting, for example), and I didn't know which Rite I officially belonged to and should be obeying. So I emailed the RCIA coordinator to ask if there was something I needed to do to "sign-up" with a specific Rite, or if I just automatically belonged to the Latin Rite just because that's the one where I first received the Sacraments. She basically said, "Oh we don't speak Latin here." :rotfl2:  Not exactly what I asked, but...

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

When the orthodox split with Rome, not all split. Then some that split came back.  They retained their rites.  Sacraments are the same.  If you can go to communion at one, you can go to any of the others.

 

Ukranian is the rite I was from and they re-joined the church via the union of brest:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm

 

 

I met a priest from the Ukranian rite, he was married legitamately, that was an eye opener to me that some roman catholic priests actually can be married, that is others outside of anglican priests that are married converting to the holy roman catholic church.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye