Dear brother Michael,
I understand what you are saying. But can you please tell us how the Popes were supposed to know of the Easterns who migrated to the U.S. (or Canada or Australia)? Did the Church even have formal categorized census at this time? Were there even enough Eastern Christians in a particular area that could constitute a formal congregation in the early 19th century?
I don’t think that there was much immigration of eastern Catholics in those years, probably almost none. These bishops were not ignorant, they were pursuing an ideal.
Today we have a much greater appreciation for diversity, and it is through that lens we are observing the past.
But in those days uniformity was more highly prized. We don’t have to agree with that, but at the time it was a value many thought worth working toward. I can’t say that I blame them.
The problem here is not contingent on the presence of eastern catholic immigration. They only banned the foreign rites because of the
possibility there
would be immigration, otherwise, why bother making any point of it?
The Popes approved these conditions. However, if the Papacy had made promises or agreements to eastern Orthodox Catholics that needed to be honored, it is the Pope’s responsibility to communicate this information in very clear terms to local synods around the world if they are acting contrary to those obligations and promises.
That’s the whole purpose of submitting the acts and decrees to the Supreme Pontiff. The history of the Councils of Baltimore shows that the Supreme Pontiff closely vetted them, asked for changes and sometimes withheld approval of certain line items. But there is nothing on this matter of rites foreign to the Roman usage.
It seems Fr. Toth was the first to test these waters(?).
He wasn’t the first to encounter these problems. We know that because there was already a reaction to married prists and complaints. Back in Europe father Toth was thought to be acceptable, his spouse and daughter had already both gone to God, and he was celibate.
Let us remember that the bishops were in their right to regulate the liturgical practices within their dioceses. It’s their job. The synod decided that there would be uniformity of practice. Separately, they had also acted to remove trusteeism from the church (it was a real problem early in Catholic history in the USA).
The Ruthenians (by that I mean the Ukrainians as well as the sub-Carpathians) were generally unhappy about having to worship in Latin Catholic parishes, probably especially the Polish ones
.
So they set up little community organizations, burial funds and that sort of thing, and even after being refused permission they raised money to build temples, this repeatedly happened without permission of the Latin bishops. The clubs or societies called for priests from the old country, but those priests had to be sent by their bishops, and those bishops instructed the priests to present themselves to the local Catholic bishops fror permission and blessing to serve.
Everyone knew the canons, and this part was proper. What became a surprise to them, I suppose, was to find out the local Latin bishops’ responses. There was a lot of push back to this affront to their authority.
The difference with father Toth was that he was a professor of canon law at a Catholic seminary, he knew the history and the promises, and it looks as though he would have been happy to remain in the Papal church he served so faithfully if he had been accepted graciously by the bishop and he had a sense that the church was honoring it’s promises to the Orthodox predecessors (who had thereby submitted to Rome).
I think we need to understand that the idea of “ritual jurisdiction within territorial jurisdiction” was unknown at this time in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (though it already existed for several centuries in Oriental Orthodoxy). I definitely agree with you that if there were enough Easterns for a congregation, the local Latin bishops should have provided for them. But my question is, until the latter 19th century, were there enough? The movement certainly had its painful birth pangs, but the events did result in the Pope providing the Easterns with their own bishop, which is a good thing, I would think.
Blessings,
Marduk
The decision to ban foreign rites was made well in advance of the contingency. The policy was clear, if there was to be any non-Roman rite Catholic immigration they were to attend the Latin rite parishes, regardless of their numbers.
The concept of ritual jurisdiction overlapping territorial jurisdiction is novel.
Actually, the Ruthenians were out of place to oppose the bishops, very really disobedient, and the Vatican was wrong not to correct the American bishops at the time they made these policies. The only blameless ones here are the Latin bishops!
Bishop Ireland’s rudeness is a different matter.
Perhaps you could help me with my the question I asked brother Michael. What was the population of Eastern Catholics in the U.S. in the early - mid-19th century? Was it significant enough for Latin bishops to establish local parishes for them?
), I would like to make several comments: