In my 2024 Thanksgiving post, I said I was thankful for the Eastern Catholic Church(es). While I have not been to the local Byzantine Catholic Parish, I have begun to investigate this side of the Church. St. John Paul the Great (Pope John Paul II) said that "the Church must breathe with her two lungs" (Un Unum Sunt paragraph 54) The two lungs are the Western and the Eastern parts of Christianity; Of course, most people when considering Eastern Christianity it is likely to be Orthodoxy, but some traditions such as the Maronites though estranged from the Catholic church were never separated, but most other traditions of the East has members who chose to reunite with Rome. In an attempt to better understand these traditions, I searched out several books on them. The first I began with was 101 Questions & Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches by Edward Faulk. Faulk is a bi-ritual deacon, meaning that he has permission to celebrate in both the Roman Rite and the Byzantine Rite. This review will give my general impressions of the book, its structure, the content, and final thoughts.
General Impressions
This seems a rather small volume to introduce the reader to the Eastern Catholic Churches. It was quite evident from the title of the book what book what the structure would be. It seems reasonable to have this structure as it is a book which is informational in nature. It was also enlightening to see how the topics were composed and laid out. So much did overlap, but it gave it a more conversational tone. While I had a very basic knowledge of differences between the West and East, but though this is still fairly basisc knowledge I still gave me areas to explore more fully, as I continue to discover the great beauty of the Eastern Catholic Church. With these few general impressions out of the way, let's look deeper at the structuTeh re.
The Structure
The basic structure of this small volume is, of course, question and answer. Faulk lays out a question and the provides enough information to give the reader an understanding of whatever topic the question was on. However, he doesn't just state the questions in no particular order, he categorizes the questions. Each series of questions has a theme, per say. The first set of questions, is some introductory questions; second comes questions on the Churches more directly on each tradition to a degree; third comes questions on the History of the Eastern Catholic Churches, fourth comes questions on theology (this is the largest section); finally, there's two questions that compose and epilogue. This structure allows the reader to slowly digest each group of questions, and while seeing the threads of similarity between them. I think it is very intuitive to place history before theology, cause as even the western Church recognizes that theology is fleshed out overtime. It's also nice that he adds the two qeustions at the end because of the issues they address tying up loose ends which may still be on the mind of the reader.. ,but more on that as I go on to discuss the content of the questions and answers in this book.
The Content
As much as I would greatly enjoy going through my reactions to each of the question in all sections, it would make this post into several posts. While I have done series in the past, I want to give some reason for you to go out and read this book yourself, so I will only be addressing some of the questions from some of the sections (Introduction, The Churches, and Theology) As the section on Theology comprises half the book, I will cover more questions from that section than the others. So let's jump in..
Introduction
For the introduction I will address question 2 only. So the question is: "Does Rite mean the same thing as Church?" As a certified English nerd, I love this question for it gets into the distinction between terms use with in Catholicism. While Faulk does not use the word yes or no in his answer, his answer seems to imply "no" these words are not synonymous. He actually explains the severals denotations (literal meanings) of the word rite. He states that "First, a "rite" is a particular ritual such as the Mass, baptism , or even a way of doing something that has become ritualized overtime". In this denotation, the scope rather narrow, in a way, as it only refers to one specific practice which has become ritualized. However, Faulk immediately broadens the reader's perspective of rite
The next denotation Faulk highlights is one of "the rituals and customs of particular churches" as in how "they celebrate the Liturgy, the sacraments (or as they are called in the East, the "mysteries" [this already hints at the theological difference between East and West]) , and the form of chant that used in those churches" (6). He also explains the relevance of the "r" in rite being uncapitalized or capitalized; the former "refers to a specific function" and the latter "refers to a particular collection of ritual used by one or more churches" (6). IN the conclusion of this questions he addresses the misnomer in calling a church such as the Maronite Church, "'the Maronite Rite Church'...., the Maronites are technically part of the Syriac Rite" (6). With this better understanding of rite let's journey onto the Churches themselves.
The Churches
In this section, Faulk addresses questions aimed at questions surrounding the Rites of the Eastern Catholic Church and in some terms their relationship with the Orthodox (though he does address the topic in the next section as well). For this section I will address questions 10 and 15 for this section. So let's get to question 10.
Question 10 asks " What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches if there is "reunion" with the Orthodox Church/?" (17). Now, this question only refers to those Eastern Catholic Churches which have Orthodox counterparts thus excluding the Maronite Church and the Italo-Albanian Church (this fact is established in a question from the introduction section I did not address 'question 1). This, for the most part, is a straight forward answer, each Church would "rejoin the corresponding Orthodox Church. For example, the Melkites would rejoin the Antiochians...and the Russian Catholics would rejoin the Russian Orthodox" (17). However, he does address that are some reunions which cause concern for example "the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches, would technically, Russian Church, but there are political considerations that might enter into the decision" (17). Faulk addresses something that I did not think of which is that a reunion would "mean the Orthodox Churches would part of the Latin Rite". I think some in the West may believe this is what a "reunion with the Orthodox means" But Faulk points out "[The Orthodox Churches] would remain as independent churches, but they would be in communion with Rome (17) and vice versa. He also specifies what in communion "means that we profess the same faith (albeit with possibly different terms)" (17). Though quite honestly thought this was revelatory or me questions 15 was perhaps even more revelatory.
Question 15 goes as follows: "Do Eastern Catholic Churches use Latin, or do they use English or some other language?" Faulk addresses that "Latin is the theological and liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church" (21). With the liturgy wars that rage in the Western Church (at least in the US), one may think it is high crime that the Roman Rite liturgy is said in the vernacular and the Mass should go back to being completely in Latin, yet, Faulk notes that "in general, Eastern Churches use the languages of the people where they are located [the vernacular]" (21). So, if you meander into an Eastern Catholic Church, you'ld be gretted by a Divine liturgy in English. Yet, Faulk notes "there are 'sacred languages' used in the Eastern Churches that function much as Latin does in the Roman Catholic Church...and Greek, which is found to some degree in virtually all of the Eastern Catholic Churches"(21). So though, yes there are language that may be present in the liturgy, but overall the liturgy is in the vernacular. So now let's start unpacking the theology of the Eastern Church.
Theology
While the Eastern Catholic Church fully agrees with the Catholic Faith, as Faulk pointed to in an earlier question these Church express this faith a bit differently than the Roman Church (the Western Church). So let's see how this actually plays out. As only a few weeks remain until Lent, so let's begin with the Eastern Catholic Churches practices surrounding fasting and abstinence. In question 51, it is asked, "What are fasting and abstinence practices of the Eastern Catholic Churches? (63). Faulk first acknowledges that in a previous question, he told the reader there are more "fasting periods" than does the Roman Catholic Church. He says that "guidelines for abstinence and fasting are just that: guidelines (63-64) and "Eastern Catholice are to follow the directions given by their spiritual father on this topic" (64). This reminds me how charitable the Catholic Church is both East and West towards her members. Now on to the specific guidelines; Faulk states that "two approaches exist: a full fast adn a modified fast" and "fasting requirement is that one does not eat solid food from Midnight to noon" (64). This long fast reminds me that for many decades the Roman Catholic Church required members to fast util they went to mass, at least for the Sunday mass, but as evening masses were introduced some time in the 20th Century (I think), and people started fainting in mass, this practice was relaxed to now being only an hour before communion though many do an hour before mass. In terms of abstinence explains "[it] mean we [Eastern Catholics] abstain from all meat (including fish), dairy products (Milk, cheese, butter), eggs, wine (really, any alcoholic beverage ), ane even olive oil" (64). Woe, this is even a broader abstinence then the Roman Catholic Church which primarily only requires abstinence from meat excluding fish. It is certainly a test of temperance. I know for one thing I certainly find it not easy to abstain from eggs as I love myself a fried egg or some scrambled eggs, or even an omelet in the morning especially on Sunday. Faulk does address the issue of if breaking the fast is a sin. and in this discussion reveals a very interesting difference between East and West. Faulk states "the difference between mortal sin and venial sin really doesn't exist in the East. Rather, all sin is seen as mortal, since all sin is an offense to God" (64). I see great merit in this view of sin, not that making a differentiation between mortal and venial is bad, but certainly simply all sins are e1ual (in a way) does make it easier for the penitent, perhaps, as he or she does not have to quibble over did I have "full knowledge" or 'full consent", and just simply confesses sin as sin. Though for scrupulous person like me if all sin is mortal then I, personally more on edge aking if this or that was a sin. But moving on the final question we'll address in this post and I guess, in a way, though i didn't originally intend to close with this qeuston for this reason, but in honor of Valentines' next month. let's discuss marriwage (marriage).
Moving directly to the next question, and then also skipping a few, the final subject touch upon will be the Eastern Catholic teaching on Marriage. Question 52 asks "Are Eastern Catholic teachings the same as Latin [Roman] Catholic teachings? (64). Faulk says "The teachings are the same in nearly every instance" (65); he acknowledges some difference, of expression briefly, and alludes to differences to be addressed later on. For this reason he chooses to use marriage as an example of a diffrence between the East and West. Faulk says "this sacrament is called the "Mystery of Crowning" in the Byzantine tradition and the "sacrament of matrimony" in the Coptic and Latin Churches" (65). Now as a Roman Catholic the biggest shock in the theology of marraige in the East is that the couple is not the ministers of the sacrament; Faulk explains "For Eastern Catholic, however, the priest or bishop is the minister of the sacrament"(65). As he doesn't expound much on why this difference exists, there's a part of me that is sad that the East and West differ in who administers the sacrament for I have always had a deep appreciation for couples entering marriage as It to me was so beautiful that the couple made the covenant and it was not, in a sense, a passive act done to them. Though, as they actively show up to the ceremony, I am hopeful it is not seen as passive action in the East that the couple is not the minister of the sacrament. Now let's get into a part of the marriage ceremony that makes the Eastern celebration of marriage so beautiful to me. Faulk explains "In Eastern Catholic marriage, the most common feature is the crowning of the couple. They are crowned for two reasons: first, to show they are king and queen in their home, snd second, to show that they are martyrs for their family" (66). What stunning symbolism! Taken together the call to mind servant leadership for they are jointly in charge of their home, but all they have to sacrifice (as the martyrs did, whose knows maybe bloodily) for any children they may have or just for other relatives. Though it is the most common thread the crowning is only one aspect of Eastern Catholic marriage. In question 84, Faulk addresses parts of the marriage ceremony (the language is important here).
Question 84 asks "What are Eastern Catholic Wedding ceremonies like?" (90). Faulk states "We speak of Eastern 'marriage ceremonies',because there are at least two ceremonies, and in some cases, three!" (90). The crowning which has already been discussed comes second. As Faulk explains "The First is the betrothal or engagement ceremony...the third is the 'removal of the crowns' that takes place after the honeymoon" (90). How lovely that there is a tripartite structure to marriage in the East as God is a trinity. Betrothal's dos exist in the western Church, but are not part of the marriage/wedding ceremony (Rite) and ther terminoloy is more known from the Tridentine Liturgy (the pre-conciliar liturgy). Faulk shares about the first part that "the blessing of the bride and groom and exchange of rings takes place" (the latter part happens at the exchange of vows in the Western Church, which is not part of Byzantine Rite as Faulk says in this tradition the couple's very presence at these ceremonies indicates a commitment to the marriage). While in the West, the marriage ceremony always takes place in the context of the liturgy, Faulk states, "the actual marriage ceremony takes place outside of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine tradition, but within the Liturgy for the Copts and Maronites"(91). This variation perhaps shows how while similar in many ways the Eastern Churches developed at times with more similarity to the West and sometimes not. With that said let's get to my final thought.
Final Thoughts
I would give this book a 4.5/5 stars. While it was a quick read and I greatly enjoyed it, sometimes the references to other questions interrupted the flow of the book a little too much for me. I also think at times have question which relate to each other topically to a degree, for example the questions address in the final section fo the last section were over 30 questions apart, for some that might be hard to remember exactly what is said about the crowning ceremony when in between are other complicated topics such as the understanding of how men are able to be priest and married (Question 80). Overall though, even if one has to go reread certain answers, the read is well worth it and a great introduction to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Glory to Jesus Christ!
Comments