J
- Status
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
(a little Godfather humor
)
Certainly there have been injustices done by the Latin Church toward Her Eastern brethren, even to this day - sadly. But, I agree with ASimpleSinner in asking what the point of bringing it up is. If it is just to antagonize and provoke, then why?! Mud can be slung towards both sides and it accomplishes nothing - on the contrary it just feeds upon itself like an evil monster and allows the wounds to fester.
Just when I thought I was out, they dragged me back in!!!
(a little Godfather humor
)This doesn’t seem to answer the question you quoted.
Certainly there have been injustices done by the Latin Church toward Her Eastern brethren, even to this day - sadly. But, I agree with ASimpleSinner in asking what the point of bringing it up is. If it is just to antagonize and provoke, then why?! Mud can be slung towards both sides and it accomplishes nothing - on the contrary it just feeds upon itself like an evil monster and allows the wounds to fester.
What I mean by this is that this is a council of Latin Bishops concerning the Latin Church in America and dealing with the Roman Rite. I see no evidence to indicate beyond that - especially to the Eastern Rites. That would be like taking the minutes from the Synod of Eastern Bishops in America and seeing that they said in the Byzantine usage no foreign rites may be incorporated - what does that have to do with the Latin parish down the street? Nothing.
H
Hesychios
Guest
It was the one and only standing synod for Catholics in the USA. It was THE Catholic church at the time. Those bishops were not merely speaking for the Latin church, but THE Catholic church. They could not, and did not think of the Eastern Catholics as someone else’s problem, it was their own problem, which they meant to control.
I can’t understand why you have such a hard time seeing this
Do you think for one minute I post this in malice? Why question my motives? Here is a pretty good primer on Byzantine Catholic history from a Byzantine Catholic priest…CIN
Anyway, I think that this is an appropriate time and place to announce that I have no intention of posting any further in this forum, and I am resigning today with the lower level of discourse here, and I mean an abysmally lower level, where facts count for less and it seems common to second guess one another’s motive instead of addressing those facts. I have no intention of participating any further.
Good luck to all of you, and May God Bless you all Abundantly.
A
Aramis
Guest
In the 1850’s, we had the height of the potato blight, and thus lots of Irish, some parishes using the outlawed celtic rite.
Lots of German immigrants. Many of whom were Lutherans. One major concern was that the Lutherans were often not readily discernable from the illicit German Language Missae Romanum. Lutherans with a very Catholic mass, but in English or German, were creating a desire for a vernacular mass.
The Anglicans, as well, had a vernacular mass that was visually very similar to the Roman Missal, but even closer.
The admonition against foreign rites applies as much to those two non-catholic rites as to the Rites that the Roman bishops would have been most familiar with: Those of the Western Church and its heresies.
The use of the other western rites was restricted in the US, and still is, due to the council of Baltimore. The Dominican Rite was not supposed to be used outside the monastery in the US. Same for Carmelite. We see no Ambrosians, no Mozarabics. As to the monastic rites, their ordinary is not that of the local populace while inside their monastery, but their superior general. Only when they go outside their community to the (then) layity did the local ordinary have any effect.
(Note that prior to V II, clerics included monsatics and others professed and having received first tonsure. Since VII, specifically since the new CIC (Code of Canon Law), Clerics are only deacons, priests, and bishops.)
Lots of German immigrants. Many of whom were Lutherans. One major concern was that the Lutherans were often not readily discernable from the illicit German Language Missae Romanum. Lutherans with a very Catholic mass, but in English or German, were creating a desire for a vernacular mass.
The Anglicans, as well, had a vernacular mass that was visually very similar to the Roman Missal, but even closer.
The admonition against foreign rites applies as much to those two non-catholic rites as to the Rites that the Roman bishops would have been most familiar with: Those of the Western Church and its heresies.
The use of the other western rites was restricted in the US, and still is, due to the council of Baltimore. The Dominican Rite was not supposed to be used outside the monastery in the US. Same for Carmelite. We see no Ambrosians, no Mozarabics. As to the monastic rites, their ordinary is not that of the local populace while inside their monastery, but their superior general. Only when they go outside their community to the (then) layity did the local ordinary have any effect.
(Note that prior to V II, clerics included monsatics and others professed and having received first tonsure. Since VII, specifically since the new CIC (Code of Canon Law), Clerics are only deacons, priests, and bishops.)
D
dvdjs
Guest
I have to echo Simple Sinner’s question: what, really, is your point?
If one simply wants to make the point that at the turn of the century, unlike now, there wasn’t much of a thought given to breathing with two lungs, that the post-conciliar idea of particular churches hadn’t fully developed, that there was considerably more hostility to diversity, etc.: Yes of course.
But it seems like you are trying to make the point that there was an effort to proscribe our religion, and that the Synod provides evidence for 1852 provides evidence for that effort. The problem is: you don’t provide critical facts. Where are Eastern rites mentioned in the 1852 Synod, what are the statistics for immigration; etc.? You suggest googling, but provide no links when asked.
Instead you have a flight of fancy in which you, in effect, assume a tremendous clairvoyance of the bishops. It is only obvious, with the benefit of perfect hindsight, that the US would survive the civil war as a nation, that the industrial North would be essentially unscathed and industrialization would continue, that emigration from Austria-Hungary would be permitted, that coal and steel makers would recruit from Austria-Hungary to English speaking but restive labor, and that significant numbers of the Austria-Hungarian immigrants would be Greek Catholics. That’s the problem with the time-line: it requires an implausible amount of knowledge of am uncertain future by the bishops. You have provided no foundation to support the idea that the bishops were working with this vision of the future in mind.
I am open to facts. But your claim about the motives of the bishops in 1852 is not based on the facts as they stand. Thus I think it’s fair to ask: why do you come here and post that?
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
We have a hard time seeing it because your conjecture does not play out in an obvious fashion here.It was the one and only standing synod for Catholics in the USA. It was THE Catholic church at the time. Those bishops were not merely speaking for the Latin church, but*** THE Catholic church***. They could not, and did not think of the Eastern Catholics as someone else’s problem, it was their own problem, which they meant to control.
I can’t understand why you have such a hard time seeing this
If in 30 years an unforeseen wave of Orthodox Russian Catholics end up in the local Latin diocese, they will be - for lack of their own hierarchy - under the local Latin ordinary. To point to docs in the Diocese of Newark that specify the Roman ritual and its usages in the diocese as a sort of pre-emptive strike against would-be/future/possible Easterners coming under the local ordinary would be just as odd.
So no, I cannot agree that Baltimore was intended to circle the wagons and shut the door on the great roving Greek Catholics Hoardes that only a clairvoyant could have seen at the time of the councils.
As to intent, no one has a problem chatting up history. But frequenly when it comes in this fashion - as though to bolster an argumentagainst being a Catholic to begin with by pointing to our shabby treatment in the past as a sort of reason in and of itself why being Greek Catholic is wrong… that is bothersome and not terribly effective at doing anything but picking at old wounds.
Even when my parents weren’t perfect, they were still my parents.
A
Alexius
Guest
I use to attend a Polish Mass with my babushka (grandmother), but I don’t remember it being much different. I know what you mean now, though.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
A
Aramis
Guest
THe Mass itself isn’t different (normally). But the parish building, the nature of the communal life of the parish, funerary customs, wedding customs, musical customs for parish gatherings (Polka Party, anyone?), lots of other little things.I use to attend a Polish Mass with my babushka (grandmother), but I don’t remember it being much different. I know what you mean now, though.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
Things that are not, in and of themselves, par of the mass, but affect the worship in the community.
C
Claudius
Guest
Actually, I would love to get my hands on as much Theology from the Eastern Catholics as possible so if you have some, please share. I love the Latin rite and study it as much as I can but I also love the Catholic Church and want to know all that it has to offer. I fully believe that the Eastern Catholics and I hold the same True Faith taught to the Holy Apostles by Jesus but I also know that we have different ways of expressing this. I have even begun to learn Greek, after I already know Latin of course. I don’t think that I would switch rites but I want to get to know and be as close as possible to my fellow Catholic brothers of the eastern rites. Latin need to realize that just as the Eastern Catholics need to accept our way and not be cafateria Catholic, the same is true of their way since we are equal in God’s Holy Catholic Church.
R
roncriss
Guest
The error here was the initial false statement that Eastern or Byzantine Catholics must be taught Latin theology. The Magisterium has never asserted that. I think the questioner is intentionally confusing dogma with theology in an attempt to spark controversy. We are to accept Church dogma and doctrines. Theology is by its very nature speculative and interpretive. Latin and Byzantine theology, when legitimate, express the same doctrines, sometimes in different terms and categories. There is no conflict.
Ron
Ron
D
Diak
Guest
Well stated by Ron, and in fact the Magesterium exhorts us to be ever more familiar with our traditions. Also the very decree of communion itself, the Union of Brest, directs in Article 1 that
As Gordon well said earlier in the thread, the ideas of a universal Magesterium and primacy need not be exclusive to “Eastern” or “Western” demarcations.
We should, obviously, know those holy Greek Doctors if we are to be faithful to our end of the covenant of communion between our Churches as Greek Catholics.
As Gordon well said earlier in the thread, the ideas of a universal Magesterium and primacy need not be exclusive to “Eastern” or “Western” demarcations.
I
Ignatius
Guest
**Do Eastern Catholics need to be taught Latin theology? **
I would say that it would be more beneficial for the Latins to learn the Eastern theological outlook.
R
roncriss
Guest
Western theology is is built on the theology of the Greek Fathers. Educated Western theologians already know the authentic Eastern theological outlook. Presumably what you call “Eastern theology” is in reality that which has been developed by Eastern Orthodox theologians since the Great Schism. This “Eastern” theology, deprived of the approval of any ecumenical councils since the Schism, cannot logically be considered authoritative, but is merely speculative, where it departs from the doctrines of the first seven ecumenical councils (which were catholic, i.e. shared by East and West and approved by the pope) or where it adds to them (i.e. doctrines of procession of the Holy Spirit, doctrines concerning divorce, transubstantiation, etc.).
Catholic theology, on the other hand, has the benefit of being informed by subsequent ecumenical councils not shared by the Eastern Orthodox churches. Byzantine Catholics, on the other hand, can and do inform their Eastern theology with the decrees of these catholic councils.
Ron
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello Ron,
It is a rhetorical question, designed to elicit a response. I wanted people to think about the question…BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD.
It has been taken out of the context of another thread. I did not initiate this current discussion, the moderator did, and you impugn my motives as someone attempting to spark controversy.
In THAT OTHER THREAD the contention was made that Orthodox would not need to go through RCIA when converting to Roman Catholicism. This is what I said:
**Yet, these are the theology and saints of the Byzantine Catholics! **as well as Orthodox who convert.
If you look for them, you will find posts criticizing Eastern Catholic posters right here (in fact even criticizing an entire particular church) for holding to another interpretation of theology than is currently dominant in the Latin Particular Sui Iuris church.
Among which…
The error here is that you are interpreting my rhetorical question as my opinion.
It is a rhetorical question, designed to elicit a response. I wanted people to think about the question…BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD.
It has been taken out of the context of another thread. I did not initiate this current discussion, the moderator did, and you impugn my motives as someone attempting to spark controversy.
In THAT OTHER THREAD the contention was made that Orthodox would not need to go through RCIA when converting to Roman Catholicism. This is what I said:
There is a real conundrum here.
From what I have been reading, Eastern Catholics are supposed to accept Latin theological constructs as valid and equal to their own. They cannot challenge or refute them, or be cafeteria Catholics.
How can they do this without knowing what these doctrines are?
How can they do this without being instructed that they accept all Latin theological constructs?
Doesn’t this leave Eastern Catholics
*] open to attack that they are not good Catholics, such as we find here so often? Shouldn’t they have a properly detailed instruction in the Latin theology so they know to what they will be assenting? Why keep them ignorant?
- I think that it is helpful to understand that canon law ascribes converting Orthodox to the corresponding Eastern Catholic church automatically (even if they convert into a Roman Catholic parish), and I wish I had made it clear in my post (I had forgotten that most of those who would automatically understand this have long since departed these grounds). If one is unaware of this rule we risk missing the point.]
**Yet, these are the theology and saints of the Byzantine Catholics! **as well as Orthodox who convert.
If you look for them, you will find posts criticizing Eastern Catholic posters right here (in fact even criticizing an entire particular church) for holding to another interpretation of theology than is currently dominant in the Latin Particular Sui Iuris church.
Among which…
*]Papal rights and responsibilities
*]The nature and effects of Original Sin
*]the concept of Mary’s sinlessness
*]Purgatory
*]Deification
What I have been trying to get across is that entire synods of Orthodox Christians were once admitted into communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Particular church, without being taught Latin theological constructs and without being expected to understand them. This lead to innumerable conflicts later, as Byzantine Catholics bore the brunt of criticism for not believing Catholic doctine in the same way as their Latin brothers.
We have seen examples of that criticism right here in this new forum.
And now we see people proposing anew (in the other thread) that Orthodox could be admitted into your church without training in latin theology. They are not taught this theology, and it is not expressed in their liturgy, but they are expected to assent to it nonetheless. Does this not seem paradoxical?
*Yes, I believe that Latin Catholics should know the eastern theology. They may benefit by it. *
Personally, I hope that they adopt it for themselves.
Honestly though, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Past abuses notwithstanding, if the Western Christians are being asked to learn about the Eastern theological outlook, would it not also be fair to ask Eastern Catholics to also learn about the Western theological outlook? Especially since they are expected to assent to it?
It is a rhetorical question.
R
roncriss
Guest
Michael,
Again, I believe your error is to confute, I know not why, “Latin theological constructs” with catholic (in the sense of universal) doctrine or dogma. There is no requirement that Eastern Catholics accept Latin theological constructs. (If you think there is, please cite the source) Orthodox who come into the Catholic Church, Byzantine or otherwise, should be instructed in Catholic (universal) dogma, especially developments resulting from ecumenical councils subsequent to the Schism. The RCIA is a Latin thing. Byzantine Catholics may legitimately choose to organize their own version, instructing converts and correcting the Man-made errors that have crept into Orthodoxy since the Schism, such as the allowance of divorce and up to three marriages in the name of “economy”, doctrines concerning purgatory, understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, etc. But these are doctrines, not “theological constructs”. The Catholic understanding always existed in the Eastern Church, even where it may be expressed in Latin or Western theological terms. But I believe many doctrines created after the Schism by the Orthodox were reactionary, an attempt to distance themselves from Catholicism. At any rate none of them have the support of ecumenical councils so they can only be the opinion of Orthodox theologians. These should be corrected.
Ron
Again, I believe your error is to confute, I know not why, “Latin theological constructs” with catholic (in the sense of universal) doctrine or dogma. There is no requirement that Eastern Catholics accept Latin theological constructs. (If you think there is, please cite the source) Orthodox who come into the Catholic Church, Byzantine or otherwise, should be instructed in Catholic (universal) dogma, especially developments resulting from ecumenical councils subsequent to the Schism. The RCIA is a Latin thing. Byzantine Catholics may legitimately choose to organize their own version, instructing converts and correcting the Man-made errors that have crept into Orthodoxy since the Schism, such as the allowance of divorce and up to three marriages in the name of “economy”, doctrines concerning purgatory, understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, etc. But these are doctrines, not “theological constructs”. The Catholic understanding always existed in the Eastern Church, even where it may be expressed in Latin or Western theological terms. But I believe many doctrines created after the Schism by the Orthodox were reactionary, an attempt to distance themselves from Catholicism. At any rate none of them have the support of ecumenical councils so they can only be the opinion of Orthodox theologians. These should be corrected.
Ron
N
NancyCNM
Guest
I am answering as a simple Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian), living in an area without an Eastern Catholic Church of any kind within a 5-6+ hour radius. We have children that are younger than the age of the Latin Rite Diocese children that are permitted to receive comunion…The problem being our children don’t understand why the priest won’t give them communion…
We have written the Bishop, et al and have not received a response, but finally found a priest in a parish who understands Eastern Tradition and the theology behind Children Receiving the three Rites of Christian Initiation- Baptism/Chrismation/Eucharist- all in infancy. HE gave me children communion and even made a big announcement at the parish as to why he did that (seeing a 2 y/o rejoicing down the aisle because he was given communion created quite a stir in church!).
My point is, knowing the theology and traditions among all rites is beneficial. The Dogma- the hard fast, non-changable rules- those are the same- regardless of “how we explain it” “How we come to understand it” “How we express it”.
It hurts us greatly to be without our Eastern Catholic Traditions, especially when our children were visibly hurt as well (being denied communion). I don’t think it is harmfull to understand the “whys”, and to understand the beautiful Latin Rite Traditions though. I think knowing about both “lungs” is what enriches us- both individually, and as part of a family- the church as a whole.
As an aside to this. we were so disturbed by our reception here initially, I contacted the Orthodox parish that is fairly close…I was told we would “have to go to confession” before we could receive Eucharist at their liturgy, but since we were Eastern Catholic. we “may not have to be baptized again”. The priest would have to check with his Bishop to see. We sighed and cryed and of course decided we couldn’t do that
Interesting…they use the same liturgy and have the same traditions, but the dogma differs.
We have written the Bishop, et al and have not received a response, but finally found a priest in a parish who understands Eastern Tradition and the theology behind Children Receiving the three Rites of Christian Initiation- Baptism/Chrismation/Eucharist- all in infancy. HE gave me children communion and even made a big announcement at the parish as to why he did that (seeing a 2 y/o rejoicing down the aisle because he was given communion created quite a stir in church!).
My point is, knowing the theology and traditions among all rites is beneficial. The Dogma- the hard fast, non-changable rules- those are the same- regardless of “how we explain it” “How we come to understand it” “How we express it”.
It hurts us greatly to be without our Eastern Catholic Traditions, especially when our children were visibly hurt as well (being denied communion). I don’t think it is harmfull to understand the “whys”, and to understand the beautiful Latin Rite Traditions though. I think knowing about both “lungs” is what enriches us- both individually, and as part of a family- the church as a whole.
As an aside to this. we were so disturbed by our reception here initially, I contacted the Orthodox parish that is fairly close…I was told we would “have to go to confession” before we could receive Eucharist at their liturgy, but since we were Eastern Catholic. we “may not have to be baptized again”. The priest would have to check with his Bishop to see. We sighed and cryed and of course decided we couldn’t do that
Interesting…they use the same liturgy and have the same traditions, but the dogma differs.
H
Hesychios
Guest
D
Diak
Guest
As an aside to this. we were so disturbed by our reception here initially, I contacted the Orthodox parish that is fairly close…I was told we would “have to go to confession” before we could receive Eucharist at their liturgy, but since we were Eastern Catholic. we “may not have to be baptized again”. The priest would have to check with his Bishop to see. We sighed and cryed and of course decided we couldn’t do that
Nancy, yes, that is indeed difficult when you live “in the desert”. Living in the lower Midwest I definitely sympathize. But I have yet to have a Latin-rite priest refuse to commune my young children after meeting with him ahead of time; if anything this could be a “catechetical moment” to talk about the “other lung”. Individual Orthodox priests have also offered to commune my young children.
N
NancyCNM
Guest
I am glad that you have had a better reception with Latin Rite Priests. We have not in the past (and yes we have talked to individual priests, and even their Bishops…)
.
.
R
roncriss
Guest
Nancy,
No, the dogma is the same, the ritual is merely different. The priest who denied your kids communion was probably either confused about the differences between rites or, for some reason, felt it would confuse the Latin rite kids who witnessed it. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will see that the Byzantine practices are accepted as valid by the Magisterium. Your problem was with a fallible, possibly confused, individual priest, not Catholic dogma, which is same for Latin and Byzantine.
Ron
- Status