Talk:Byzantine Rite

"Byzantine Rite Catholic" in Andy Warhol

Andy Warhol says "Warhol was a practicing Byzantine Rite Catholic ". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#Religious_beliefs

I'd like to link Byzantine Rite Catholic, but I'm not sure where it should direct. Anybody? Thanks. (Crossposted to Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches ) -- Writtenonsand 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume he belonged to the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, part of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Lima 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Official Bible Standard for Greeks

The Latin Church uses the Latin Vulgate Holy Bible - which Bible do the Byzantines use?

I assume the Greek text of the NT (the original language) , about OT, I don't know, mayebe the LXX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniloVilicic (talk • contribs) 06:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the original Greek for the New testament and the Septuagint of the Old. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

sui iuris

There's no need IMO to leave the latin without some sort of translation for clarity. I just edited in a parenthetical "autonomous" to explain what sui iuris means though it would also be acceptable to provide the literal "of their own laws" if autonomous is not acceptable to other editors TMLutas (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "juris" is a genitive singular (the plural would be jurum) from a third declension noun, so it means "of its own right" or "of its own law." LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Eastern Orthodox worship into this article since both deal with the same entity and each article has information lacking in the other as well as information better presented in one than in the other; Byzantine rite is the more accurate term since not all (albeit nearly all) Eastern Orthodox use this rite while some Catholics also use this rite. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be a mistake, as there are important differences between the topics. Not all 'worship' is part of the 'rite'. Definitely no reason to merge them. Jeppiz (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you give an example of worship that is not part of the Byzantine Rite? Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Everything in the article Eastern Orthodox worship is about the Byzantine Rite, so even if not all 'worship' be part of the 'rite' (which is arguable) that article should still be merged into this one. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm of course assuming good faith, but have you actually read the article Eastern Orthodox worship? There are many things that are not just about the rite. The design of the church, the icons, the vestments, lightning candles, bell ringing, incense, making the sign of the cross, and many other things. These are not part of the rite, certainly not exclusive to the Byzantine rite. With all due respect, this whole proposal seems to be based more of a misunderstanding about what 'rite' means than any actual duplication. I do see your point, though. There is considerable overlap and I think you're right to say the articles should be restructured. I'm just not sure a complete merger is the best solution. Jeppiz (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is a misunderstanding of what 'rite' means, but I think you have the misunderstanding. Rite is much broader than what's said in the Divine Liturgy. The Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches defines "Rite" as: "the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris." That means that the Byzantine Rite includes all of the things you mention, plus even more. Even the theological formulations of doctrine are part of the Rite. All of the things you mention are manifested in distinct ways in the Byzantine Rite, and so therefore are part of the liturgical patrimony. You should be able to walk into a church and immediately tell what Rite it belongs to. In fact you wouldn't even have to walk in, you could probably tell from the outside. But the presence of an iconostasis and icons of a particular style, even to the exclusion of anything else at all, that should be more than enough to scream "Byzantine Rite". And you wouldn't necessarily be in an Eastern Orthodox church. There are many Churches which share the Byzantine Rite that are not in the EO communion. Which leads us to think of some of the other problems with the article. Its scope is too narrow. Everything mentioned in the article is also characteristic of Eastern Catholic Churches. It is wholly unsourced. I would have reservations about simply moving all this material into the Byzantine Rite article because we don't want a mess of unsourced essaylike material, we want carefully-written facts backed up by reliable secondary sources. Some of the article can be salvaged, but at this point I am leaning toward nominating it for deletion, where we would have more eyes on the discussion and come to a binding decision on whether to merge or just blow it all up. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Elizium23, thank you for your comment, and I agree with almost everything you said. And what you said shows exactly why we should have two (better) articles. Just as you say, most Eastern Catholic churches also use the Byzantine Rite. Entering into a Melkite church, you easily identify it belongs to the Byzantine rite, same thing with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Yet I'm sure Christians of those churches, while perfectly comfortable with being included under the Byzantine rite, would be less thrilled to be included under Eastern Orthodox Worship. Of course the worship is largely similar, though I'm sure you're aware that there are some differences. Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is good as the overlap is far too big. Likewise, I'd like to point out that my comment about perhaps not having enough knowledge of the rite was about some well-meaning users who have edited the two articles; I'm quite sure the users in this thread know it perfectly well. However, Wikipedia's policies for deletion are quite clear: a poorly written article is not a reason to delete it. Not being notable is, and being the same of another article also is. In this case, I don't think either applies. Jeppiz (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, there are not *supposed* to be any differences between Eastern Orthodox worship and the worship of Roman Catholics who use the Byzantine Rite, aside from the latter commemorating the Pope of Rome. Secondly, please keep in mind that nearly everyone who uses the Byzantine Rite is Eastern Orthodox; only a few percent of them are Roman Catholics and, therefore, this article is pretty much synonymous with Eastern Orthodox worship, although, perhaps, some notes about Byzantine Catholic mangling of the rite (aka, "Latinization") in certain geographic locations may be in order. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Byzantine Catholics hold any official stance on whether their respective forms of worship are *supposed* to be the same or not. At present they are indeed extremely similar, but that is simply because both sides have preserved mostly the same practices since they split. They don't have to continue doing this - either side could unilaterally change things about its own practices, and the other side would not be obligated to copy it. Neither side has any rules requiring its practices to remain similar to those of the other. Eastern Orthodox Worship and the Catholic Byzantine Rite are two functionally separate Rites that happen to be very similar at the present time, but they are governed by entirely separate authorities under no obligation to maintain the similarity. Ohff (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

However, more to the point: As noted by Lipsio, only a few percent of Christians using the Byzantine Rite are Eastern Catholics... and yet those few percent make up the overwhelming majority of people who actually call it "Byzantine Rite". The term "Byzantine Rite" is largely a Catholic one. A cursory look at the google search results for "Byzantine Rite" will confirm this (almost all results are Catholic websites). And so will a survey of the sources in this article. The Catholic sources generally call it the "Byzantine Rite", while the Orthodox sources generally call it either "Orthodox worship" (search results) or don't use any name for it, treating it simply as the standard mode of worship of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the rare instances when the (extremely small) Orthodox Western Rite is being discussed and therefore the mainstream form of Orthodox worship has to be given a more specific name, it is more often called the "Eastern Rite" rather than "Byzantine Rite" (example).

So, if anything is to be merged, I believe that "Orthodox worship" or "Eastern Orthodox worship" is actually the common name for the subject in question (or at least for the Orthodox version). Therefore, Eastern Orthodox worship should be the primary article, and content from here should be moved there (not vice versa), while the Byzantine Rite article should be shorter and focus on the Catholic understanding of the subject. Ohff (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We can't move any content from this article when it's completely unsourced. Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm also fine with the status quo... I'm only arguing against the idea of a merger, as the topics are sufficiently separate to require two articles. Whether those articles are good at the moment is another issue. Ohff (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are we having this discussion in two different places? Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If it is not possible to speak about Byzantine Rite worship in the sense that it is shared by EO and EC alike, then neither is it possible to speak about Eastern Orthodox worship in the sense that it is shared by every Eastern Orthodox Church. None of the autocephalous Churches have met with each other or collaborated since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, and so it would not be proper to attempt to lump them all together with regards to liturgical patrimony. Elizium23 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That is very incorrect. There hasn't been a meeting officially recognized to hold the status of an Ecumenical Council since 787, but the leaders of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches have met with each other and collaborated on a vast number of occasions without calling those meetings Ecumenical Councils. The most recent meeting of the entire Eastern Orthodox communion was in 2009, and the most recent meeting of a part of the Eastern Orthodox communion was just a few months ago (this was supposed to be a meeting of the entire communion but some autocephalous Churches declined to participate). Lower-level meetings between groups of bishops belonging to different autocephalous Churches happen all the time, with some being formalized as permanent bodies. Ohff (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the fact that we seem to be having this discussion in two different places, it's just that the vote is located on one Talk page but the main discussion has developed on another Talk page... I suppose they could be combined on a single page, but I just joined the discussion now, so I don't think it would be right for me to edit boldly here. Ohff (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, so as you see, ecumenical relations among Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions are alive and well. Likewise there is plenty of dialogue between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Did Pope Francis not meet with Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew? I find it hard to believe that dialogue would not include liturgical concerns and focus on convergence. Then we have this: Study Texts of the Byzantine Liturgy. "Ruthenian, Ukrainian, and Hungarian Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox who originate in central Europe) all use what is called the "Ruthenian Recension" of the Byzantine Liturgy. It's not identical to the Russian and Greek recensions, but most worshippers don't see any differences. The differences are, in fact, fairly small, and amount to an occasional different text or rubric (the Ruthenian ones often being the more ancient)." As you can see, there are three major recensions in the Byzantine Rite. And the Russian recension used to diverge much more from the Greek, when it was revised to conform, the Old Believers went into schism. But just because there are variations within the Byzantine Rite doesn't seem to be an argument for keeping two separate articles.

And then there is the question of Eastern Orthodox usage of the "Byzantine Rite" term.

1. https://smile.amazon.com/Orthodox-Liturgy-Development-Eucharistic-Byzantine/dp/0881411000/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g2609328962?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&ie=UTF8
2. https://books.google.com/books?id=_Zo3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=%22byzantine+rite%22+%22orthodox+church%22+-catholic&source=bl&ots=0EdXt9AT2r&sig=NKfbqtz6Mkc8vZV7aQ5XBl-w_wI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn67u_paLQAhVriVQKHb1OBec4ChDoAQgzMAU#v=onepage&q=%22byzantine%20rite%22%20%22orthodox%20church%22%20-catholic&f=false
3. https://books.google.com/books?id=O4pj9YNdgJYC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=%22byzantine+rite%22+%22orthodox+church%22+-catholic&source=bl&ots=sRV8IJTuqu&sig=T8dtStf8XZ9TfhrDu3e5r2GQ4qI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn67u_paLQAhVriVQKHb1OBec4ChDoAQg1MAY#v=onepage&q=%22byzantine%20rite%22%20%22orthodox%20church%22%20-catholic&f=false
4. https://books.google.com/books?id=uODOkMgUZKYC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22byzantine+rite%22+%22orthodox+church%22+-catholic&source=bl&ots=k9t0cmQ-Hu&sig=o6SL3u7nCOYfF5QpzgL5Loh81aU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn67u_paLQAhVriVQKHb1OBec4ChDoAQg4MAc#v=onepage&q=%22byzantine%20rite%22%20%22orthodox%20church%22%20-catholic&f=false
5. https://books.google.com/books?id=TRwMAGgCGM4C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=%22byzantine+rite%22+%22orthodox+church%22+-catholic&source=bl&ots=QwlfCvZBUc&sig=U7k4mpxqoI73aX_WIsHFeiQ6-8M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn0IezpqLQAhUol1QKHRd5C6Y4FBDoAQgwMAU#v=onepage&q=%22byzantine%20rite%22%20%22orthodox%20church%22%20-catholic&f=false

Those are all books where the authors are happy to use the term "Byzantine Rite" for the Orthodox mode of worship. Encyclopedia Britannica agrees. Elizium23 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I never denied that some authors do indeed refer to Orthodox worship as "Byzantine Rite". What I am saying is that "Byzantine Rite" is not a clear WP:COMMONNAME for the Orthodox mode of worship. It is easy to prove this: Just do another Google Books search, like the ones you did above, searching for books that include the term "Orthodox worship" but exclude the term "Byzantine Rite". You will find many. Here are some examples:

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=Yx13ZFi_N6gC&pg=PT199&dq=%22orthodox+worship%22+-%22byzantine+rite%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq6J_mjeXQAhUO0GMKHaITBakQ6AEIODAG#v=onepage&q=%22orthodox%20worship%22%20-%22byzantine%20rite%22&f=false
2. https://books.google.com/books?id=dmjQhWlKqqsC&pg=PA242&dq=%22orthodox+worship%22+-%22byzantine+rite%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq6J_mjeXQAhUO0GMKHaITBakQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%22orthodox%20worship%22%20-%22byzantine%20rite%22&f=false
3. https://books.google.com/books?id=G7NKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&dq=%22orthodox+worship%22+-%22byzantine+rite%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq6J_mjeXQAhUO0GMKHaITBakQ6AEIMjAF#v=onepage&q=%22orthodox%20worship%22%20-%22byzantine%20rite%22&f=false
4. https://books.google.com/books?id=ckkRoFrW_dQC&pg=PT238&dq=%22orthodox+worship%22+-%22byzantine+rite%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidrvS_gunQAhWBYiYKHT-UADI4ChDoAQg7MAY#v=onepage&q=%22orthodox%20worship%22%20-%22byzantine%20rite%22&f=false
5. https://books.google.com/books?id=cNZBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&dq=%22orthodox+worship%22+-%22byzantine+rite%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwios-fzienQAhUJwiYKHYgFCgw4FBDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=%22orthodox%20worship%22%20-%22byzantine%20rite%22&f=false

The term "[Eastern] Orthodox worship" is also used in book titles. For example: [1]

So, as you can see, just as there are authors who use the term "Byzantine Rite", there are also many other authors who call it "Orthodox worship" and do not use the term "Byzantine Rite". If you read the various excerpts from the books linked above, you will notice that these authors (and others as well) treat "Orthodox worship" as something inextricably linked to Orthodox theology, and do not conceive of it as something that can also be used by other, non-Orthodox Churches. Therefore, their concept of "Orthodox worship" is not the same thing as the broader concept of the Byzantine Rite. It's not just the Byzantine Rite by a different name. It's another conceptual category altogether. The concept of a "Byzantine Rite" is based on the idea that liturgical practices and theological beliefs are separable - so that different churches which believe different things can be said to use the same rite. The concept of "[Eastern] Orthodox worship", on the other hand, is based on the idea that liturgical practices and theological beliefs are inseparable - that if two separate churches believe different things, then their practices will reflect those differences, and so their practices should be conceptualized as being in different categories, even if the differences are small. We don't need to decide which of these two different ways of looking at the relationship between theology and liturgy is "true", of course. That's not what Wikipedia is about. But we should acknowledge that two different perspectives exist.

However, perhaps you are not convinced. Well, let's see what happens when we do a Google Books search for the term "Byzantine Rite" by itself, without orthodox search terms:

• Google Books search for the term "Byzantine Rite"

Those results are mostly books by Catholic authors, and often they are talking specifically about a Catholic subject (i.e. the second result is a book titled "Byzantine rite Rusins in Carpatho-Ruthenia and America", and the third is "The Byzantine Rite Catholic Church as the Unifying Factor for a Ruthenian Community in Binghamton, New York"). Surely you must see that this represents strong evidence against the claim that the term "Byzantine Rite" is in common use among the Orthodox. If it were in common use, given that the Orthodox greatly outnumber the Greek Catholics, why are there so many more Catholic sources using the term "Byzantine Rite"? The most reasonable explanation for the comparative rarity of Orthodox sources on the "Byzantine Rite" is simply that the Orthodox do not use that name very often.

Thus my original point: "Byzantine Rite" is mostly (not exclusively, but mostly) a Catholic term. There should be an article called Byzantine Rite for the Catholic view, and one called Eastern Orthodox worship for the Orthodox view. Of course they have a great number of things in common, but we are not doomed to duplicate content, because one article should use sources that talk about Byzantine Catholicism and the other should use sources that talk about Eastern Orthodoxy. Those sources will not say identical things. Ohff (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Byzantine Rite is not the only form of worship in Eastern Orthodox Church and therefore article Eastern Orthodox worship should not be merged with article Byzantine Rite. There here are various local forms of Eastern Orthodox worship that do not fall under the traditional canon of Byzantine Rite. For example, ritual of Slava is a form of worship in Serbian Orthodox Church, and that local ritual is not part of traditional canon of Byzantine Rite. Sorabino (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Classification of Churches based on calendars

I have updated the listing of Eastern Orthodox and Greek-Catholic Churches in this article insofar as some of them (but not all) were identified as following the Julian Calendar in full or in part (it was not even clear what this meant). First, I removed all suggestion that any of the Catholic Churches use something other than the Gregorian Calendar since that calendar is the Catholic Church's own (it is named after the Pope who introduced it), and there was no evidence provided for the idea that any Catholics use a different calendar. Second, I updated the classification with regard to the Eastern Orthodox churches to reflect whether they use the Julian Calendar or the Revised Julian Calendar (I assume this is the distinction that was purportedly being made already) and marked the churches according to the information provided in the article on the Revised Julian Calendar since there did not appear to be any sourcing for the distinction here. If someone has sourcing to update the classification as it currently stands, I welcome better information. I would also be fine with dropping this distinction from this list in this article. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that! I would also be fine with dropping this distinction altogether. But as long as it remains, I did a little cleanup. It's usually simple to tell which calendar a church uses by going to its official website, because most such websites will have the saints of the day listed, and therefore the official Church Calendar date as well. For example, today, new calendar Churches will list the saints for the date of 3 May, while old calendar Churches will list the saints for the date of 20 April (since today's date is 20 April on the Julian calendar). Ohff (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The controversy over which calendar to use resulted in a minor schism in Eastern Orthodoxy, with the supporters of the Julian calendar being the Old Calendarists. Per the article: "A revised form of the Julian Calendar, developed by the Serbian astronomer Milutin Milanković, which mostly coincides with the Gregorian one was finally adopted by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1924 as well as by the autocephalous Church of Greece. A minority of Eastern Orthodox Christians regarded this as a surrender of the Eastern Orthodox Church to the West and to the Pope and continued following the old calendar. Some of these also broke communion with those who had adopted the new calendar, thus creating their own church, or denomination... This schism is the beginning of the Old Calendar Churches which suspended full communion or concelebration with other Eastern Orthodox churches ("New Calendarists") over the adoption by the latter of the Revised Julian calendar"

More details are included in the article Greek Old Calendarists, including splits between the Old Calendarists themselves. Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, some (a very small part) of the supporters of the Julian calendar went into schism and became known as the "Old Calendarists". But the vast majority remained in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Actually, they represent most of the Church. The patriarchates that continue to use the old Julian calendar (Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Georgia) have a membership significantly greater than the ones which have adopted the calendar reform. This is largely due to the size of the Russian Orthodox Church, which uses the old Julian calendar and contains about half of all Eastern Orthodox Christians by itself.

Of course, none of this is relevant to the article. I just wanted to mention it. Ohff (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Rite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029042008/http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=22&IndexView=toc to http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=22&IndexView=toc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Monks and Seminarians on Cliros in Jordanville.jpg (discussion)
• Priest reciting Prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)