Do Eastern Catholics need to be taught Latin theology?

[roncriss]

I suggest that you accept that Latin Catholic is the term used here with the least amount of baggage or complaint to refer to those people who belong to the Latin rite of the Latin Church in order to distinguish them from other rites of the Latin Church and from Catholics of other Churches.

I prefer to abandon such pejorative lables. I am an American Catholic who frequently attends a Roman Rite (English-speaking) parish. About once a year, usually around Christmas, we attempt a few verses of latin from a Christmas carol. When I can I attend the Byzantine rite, Ruthenian or Melkite, which is further away.

I have a master’s degree in theology from a Catholic university. Which causes me to wonder what these “Latin theological constructs” being forced on Byzantine Catholics might be and who is doing the forcing.

As I see it there is one holy, catholic and apostolic church, headed by the successor of Peter, and a bunch of nationalistic and schismatic sects who exist at best on the finges of that church. I distinguish between Catholics, whatever rite they attend, and non-Catholics.

Again, the Russian Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Soloviev sums it up the best in my opinion:

“The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that is neither a national church, nor a State church, nor a sect founded by a man; it is the only church in the world which maintains and asserts the principle of universal social unity against individual egoism and national particularism; it is the only church which maintains and asserts the freedom of the spiritual power against the absolutism of the State; in a word, it is the only church against which the gates of hell have not prevailed.”

“I recognize as supreme judge in matters of religion him who has been recognized as such by Saiant Irenaeus, Saint Dionysius the Great, Saint Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, Saint Cyril, Saint Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Theodore of the Studium, St. Ignatius, etc., etc. – namely, the Apostle Peter, who lives in his successors and who has not heard in vain our Lord’s words: ‘Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church’; ‘Strengthen thy brethren’; ‘Feed My sheep, feed My lambs.’”

(from Russia and the Universal Church, 1889, published in english as The Russian Church and the Papacy)

Ron

 

[Diak]

As I suspected this “they” is not the Magisterium. In fact he doesn’t really tell us who this “they” is, does he? There may have been pressure, both externally and internally, to Latinize. In fact the Ukranians seem to have bent over backwards to do so, in comparison with other Uniate churches.

True, not the Magesterium, but clearly indeed the “they” are Latins, whether indirectly or directly influencing the past trends of latinization. When you imply “internal pressure” again one has to remember that many if not most of our clergy until very recently were forced to study in Latin institutions because ours were not allowed to exist.

Even the use of the phrase “If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin” in the negative sense by Patriarch Lubomyr in the article cited by Michael can be found not uncommonly in the Latin polemical literature after the Union. Even in the 20th century such bishops as Blesseds Mykola Charnetsky and Vasyl Velychkovsky and others document this kind of treatment by the Latin hierarchies where they were working. I will say in fairness that generally these were the actions of local clergy and hierarchy and not those of the Holy See.

And we continued to remain faithful to our covenant of communion with Rome, the Union of Brest, in spite of horrendous persecutions, both spiritual and physical.

Bent over backwards? This is like saying the Latin Church bent over backwards to self-destruct herself liturgically after 1969. I don’t think in either case the effects were desired beforehand by either the faithful or the majority of the hierarchy.

And as for someone who just a post ago indicated he had preferred to abandon perjorative labels, you may want to reconsider your use of Uniate in light of Catherine Grant’s admonitions for use of certain terms in this Forum, On the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic.
FDRLB

 

[ronyodish]

I prefer to abandon such pejorative lables. I am an American Catholic who frequently attends a Roman Rite (English-speaking) parish. About once a year, usually around Christmas, we attempt a few verses of latin from a Christmas carol. When I can I attend the Byzantine rite, Ruthenian or Melkite, which is further away.

Ron,

The Latin Church is the canonical term for the Roman Catholic Church (See Canon 1 of the Code of Canon Law).

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is a full communion of sui iuris Churches. The Latin Church is one of these sui iuris Churches. The 22 Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches are the other sui iuris Churches.

If you are called a Latin Catholic on this forum, it is simply because of the canonical name of your sui iuris Church. You should not perceive it as a pejorative label to be called a Latin Catholic. Your Latin Church is the inheritor of the great Latin ritual tradition, that is, the theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines, which distinguish the Latin Church from the other Catholic Churches. You should be honored to be called a Latin Catholic.

There is no canonical American Catholic Church, so why would you want to be called an American Catholic? It is too vague and says nothing about which sui iuris Church you belong to.

I love it when I am known as a Chaldean Catholic, and even though I am an American citizen and glad to be part of the USA, I would not want to be called an American Catholic because that’s just too… well, bland! I am a member of the great Chaldean Catholic Church! That’s how I want to be identified

God bless,

Rony

 

[Aramis]

The closest to a “Canonical American Catholic Church” is the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh Sui Iuris, commonly called the Ruthenian church.

Since Canadian Ruthenians are under the UGCC’s canonical guidance, the eparchies in Europe are not under the BCMCoP’s Omophor, and the Ruthenians elsewhere go to the local ordinary or some other Byzantine Catholic Church, the BCMCoP is in both location of see and extent of authority an exclusively US church.

 

[ronyodish]

Aramis,

Thanks for this info.

I have a question with regards this section on the Ruthenian Catholic Church:

---

The Ruthenian Church now consists of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh — comprising the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh[10] (originally established in 1924) with its three suffragan eparchies of Parma,[11] (1969) Passaic,[12] (1963) and Van Nuys (1981) — the Eparchy of Mukacheve in Ukraine (dating from 1771 and immediately subject to the Holy See), and the Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic (founded in 1996).

One problem preventing organization of the Ruthenian Catholic Church under a single synod is the desire of some of the priests and faithful of the Eparchy of Mukacheve that it should be part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.[13]

Ruthenian parishes stress acceptance of the Pope and of the Catholic Church and its teachings (with an Eastern expression). [4] The Second Vatican Council directed this Church to remove much of the “Latinization” in an attempt to return to its Eastern Christian identity. This has been met with some success. In June 1999 the Council of Hierarchs of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh U.S.A. promulgated the norms of particular law to govern itself. In January 2007 the Council of Hierarchs promulgated revised versions of the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great.

Members of the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church of the United States of America are not limited to immigrants from Eastern Europe or their descendants.​

Is the Metropolia of Pittsburgh alone considered the Ruthenian Catholic Church Sui Iuris?

Or

Is the Metropolia of Pittsburgh along with the Eparchy of Mukacheve in Ukraine, and the Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic together considered the Ruthenian Catholic Church Sui Iuris?

God bless,

Rony

 

[roncriss]

Even the use of the phrase “If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin” in the negative sense by Patriarch Lubomyr in the article cited by Michael can be found not uncommonly in the Latin polemical literature after the Union.

Then you won’t mind providing us with a few quotes to prove the point? I won’t hold my breath.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Bent over backwards? This is like saying the Latin Church bent over backwards to self-destruct herself liturgically after 1969. I don’t think in either case the effects were desired beforehand by either the faithful or the majority of the hierarchy.

And as for someone who just a post ago indicated he had preferred to abandon perjorative labels, you may want to reconsider your use of Uniate in light of Catherine Grant’s admonitions for use of certain terms in this Forum, On the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic.
FDRLB

Yes, the European and American Catholic churches bent over backwards to destroy the Novus Ordo Mass with their goofyness. The Ukranians who changed their liturgy to appeal to their own and their Roman brethren in the hierarchy, like the progressives who corrupted the Novus Ordo, were probably quite sincere, though misguided.

I don’t consider Uniate to be pejorative. There’s nothing wrong with union. Christ demanded it.

Ron

 

[Aramis]

Aramis,

Thanks for this info.

I have a question with regards this section on the Ruthenian Catholic Church:

---

The Ruthenian Church now consists of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh — comprising the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh[10] (originally established in 1924) with its three suffragan eparchies of Parma,[11] (1969) Passaic,[12] (1963) and Van Nuys (1981) — the Eparchy of Mukacheve in Ukraine (dating from 1771 and immediately subject to the Holy See), and the Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic (founded in 1996).

One problem preventing organization of the Ruthenian Catholic Church under a single synod is the desire of some of the priests and faithful of the Eparchy of Mukacheve that it should be part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.[13]

Ruthenian parishes stress acceptance of the Pope and of the Catholic Church and its teachings (with an Eastern expression). [4] The Second Vatican Council directed this Church to remove much of the “Latinization” in an attempt to return to its Eastern Christian identity. This has been met with some success. In June 1999 the Council of Hierarchs of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh U.S.A. promulgated the norms of particular law to govern itself. In January 2007 the Council of Hierarchs promulgated revised versions of the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great.

Members of the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church of the United States of America are not limited to immigrants from Eastern Europe or their descendants.​

Is the Metropolia of Pittsburgh alone considered the Ruthenian Catholic Church Sui Iuris?

Or

Is the Metropolia of Pittsburgh along with the Eparchy of Mukacheve in Ukraine, and the Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic together considered the Ruthenian Catholic Church Sui Iuris?

God bless,

Rony

The Archeparchy of Pittsburgh is the Sui Iuris church. The Exarchate of Czechs and the Eparchy of Muchachevo are direct papal dependencies.
BMCSIoP official site:

The Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh was established as the Exarchate of Pittsburgh in 1924. This Exarchate expanded to become the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and the Eparchy of Passaic in 1963.

Full status as a Metropolitan Church was granted in 1969 with the designation of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, the Eparchy of Passaic, the Eparchy of Parma and, later, the Eparchy of Van Nuys.

The Metropolitan Church is governed by the Council of Hierarchs comprised of the Metropolitan Archbishop and the bishops of each of the eparchies.

archeparchy.org/page/metropolia/metropolia.htm

So, no, the European Local Particular Churches are not part of the Sui Iuris Ruthenian Church, but they are Ruthenian Local Particular Churches.

 

[East_and_West]

I prefer to abandon such pejorative lables. I am an American Catholic who frequently attends a Roman Rite (English-speaking) parish. About once a year, usually around Christmas, we attempt a few verses of latin from a Christmas carol. When I can I attend the Byzantine rite, Ruthenian or Melkite, which is further away.

I have a master’s degree in theology from a Catholic university. Which causes me to wonder what these “Latin theological constructs” being forced on Byzantine Catholics might be and who is doing the forcing.

As I see it there is one holy, catholic and apostolic church, headed by the successor of Peter, and a bunch of nationalistic and schismatic sects who exist at best on the finges of that church. I distinguish between Catholics, whatever rite they attend, and non-Catholics.

Again, the Russian Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Soloviev sums it up the best in my opinion:

“The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that is neither a national church, nor a State church, nor a sect founded by a man; it is the only church in the world which maintains and asserts the principle of universal social unity against individual egoism and national particularism; it is the only church which maintains and asserts the freedom of the spiritual power against the absolutism of the State; in a word, it is the only church against which the gates of hell have not prevailed.”

“I recognize as supreme judge in matters of religion him who has been recognized as such by Saiant Irenaeus, Saint Dionysius the Great, Saint Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, Saint Cyril, Saint Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Theodore of the Studium, St. Ignatius, etc., etc. – namely, the Apostle Peter, who lives in his successors and who has not heard in vain our Lord’s words: ‘Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church’; ‘Strengthen thy brethren’; ‘Feed My sheep, feed My lambs.’”

(from Russia and the Universal Church, 1889, published in english as The Russian Church and the Papacy)

Ron

AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!

 

[East_and_West]

None the less, it is applied (quite often, and even by the moderators here) to groups in schism, including some sedevaticanists.

Inappropriately applied to them.

 

[Diak]

Then you won’t mind providing us with a few quotes to prove the point? I won’t hold my breath.

Ron

From Skarga “The Unity of God’s Church,”:

“The Greeks fooled you, O Ruthenian people, for in giving you the Holy Faith, they did not give you the Greek language, forcing you to use the Slavonic tongue so that you could never attain true understanding and learning… for one can never attain learning by means of the Slavonic language”

Piotr Skarga, Jesuit, 1576. A good start, considering nearly all of the liturgical books at the time of the Union of Brest were Slavonic.
FDRLB

 

[Diak]

I don’t consider Uniate to be pejorative. There’s nothing wrong with union. Christ demanded it.

Ron

You, sir, are obviously not familiar with a great deal of the corpus of polemical works involving the use of this term. Many do find it quite offensive; and like it or not there are ground rules of this Forum that deal with its use.

I find it quite strange that you object to the use of “Latin” while using the term Uniate.

To refresh your memory of what our moderator Catherine Grant has written on the “Sticky” at the top of the Eastern Catholicism threads:

Historically, the term Uniate was employed relatively freely by the Catholic Churches, including those of the East and Orient, as well as by the Orthodox Churches.

During a period in the 20th century, it took on a pejorative nature when it was perceived as being used sneeringly by some Orthodox (principally those of the Eastern, rather than the Oriental, Churches). As a result, the Eastern and Oriental Catholics ceased using the term in reference to themselves, particularly in America, where the majority of CAF’s posters reside.

In recent history, there has been some increase in the use of the term by Rome itself and by some Eastern and Oriental Catholics. The subject has been much discussed here in the past, expressing that a large segment of CAF’s Eastern and Oriental Catholics continue to view the term to be an offensive pejorative. As such, the abiding guideline was a ban of the term uniate, along with heretic and schismatic (and their derivative forms), when they are used in a manner that smacks of them being confrontational, contemptuous, disparaging, inciteful, insulting, taunting, or worse.

Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.
An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion. Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters.

Note that ascribing these terms to the faithful or to individual members of any of the Apostolic Churches is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Please review our Charity guidelines first, and if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact a forum moderator.

Those are the moderator’s words, not mine.
FDRLB

 

[roncriss]

Someone earlier provided a link to Canon Law which illustrated the fact that the Church does in fact apply the lable “Latin” to the Western Church. I didn’t want anyone to think that I was running from the debate and will concede that fact that I was wrong. I was working for several days and couldn’t get to the computer. I will obediently accept the Church’s appellation, though I still don’t believe there was ever an official requirement that Byzantine Catholics accept “Latin theological constructs”. I don’t even believe there is a requirement that LATIN Catholics accept “Latin theological constructs”. In fact I don’t know where one could even find such things TO concede to.

I was reprimanded by the Moderator for using the term “Uniate”, which I consider to be a compliment rather than an insult, so it appears I cannot possibly discuss this subject without offending someone since we have different definitions for words. So I will cease to discuss it from here on.

Ron

 

[Hesychios]

The Archeparchy of Pittsburgh is the Sui Iuris church. The Exarchate of Czechs and the Eparchy of Muchachevo are direct papal dependencies.

archeparchy.org/page/metropolia/metropolia.htm

So, no, the European Local Particular Churches are not part of the Sui Iuris Ruthenian Church, but they are Ruthenian Local Particular Churches.

Huh? If they are not to be included in the same Sui Iuris church as Pittsburgh, whatever Sui Iuris church would they belong to? If these churches (from which Pittsburgh’s tradition is derived) are not a Sui Iuris church, then what justification is there for Pittsburgh to be considered as one without them?

All of these, including the Metropolia of Pittsburgh are direct Papal dependencies of Rome in reality, if not in name. The only way that would change for any of them would be if it were given a Major-Archbishop (which is very unlikely) in which case the Pope would not be choosing the subsequent Archbishops, but confirming the synod’s choice.

The breakup of the Ruthenian churches in Europe along national lines was a unilateral decision on the part of the Vatican. It is only by dividing them like this that Rome can justify appointing Apostolic Administrators instead of Eparchs. These are not mission districts by any means, the church in those areas has existed for four hundred years and has many experienced clergy from which to choose.

Mukachevo has an Apostolic Administrator presently, a member of a Religious Order sent in from Slovakia, but the diocesen bishop of the Byzantine rite was under the Latin bishop of Eger (in Hungary) before the province was annexed into Ukraine. So for most of it’s history Mukachevo was not a direct dependency of the bishop of Rome, but of another Latin bishop altogether.

The fact that the Carpatho-Rusyn church is spread over several nations should not in itself exclude the various parts from being considered one and the same Sui Iuris church. Such a rule does not apply to any other Sui Iuris church, the most prominant example being the Latin.

As it stands, the Pittsburgh Metropolia is smaller than Mukachevo (and probably Prešov as well), and does not have a history comparable to any in Europe. In fact Pittsburgh is in a period of rapid decline and the European churches seem to be growing. It doesn’t make any sense to me to regard the Metropolia of Pittsburgh as the sole representative body of the Ruthenian Sui Iuris church, if that is what you mean.

Michael

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from moderator:

Please continue the discussion on traditional vs. traditionalist views on Vatican II and the new order of the Mass here: ** Debate: Novus Ordo vs. TLM; Traditional vs. Traditionalist**

 

[Aramis]

Huh? If they are not to be included in the same Sui Iuris church as Pittsburgh, whatever Sui Iuris church would they belong to? If these churches (from which Pittsburgh’s tradition is derived) are not a Sui Iuris church, then what justification is there for Pittsburgh to be considered as one without them?

All of these, including the Metropolia of Pittsburgh are direct Papal dependencies of Rome in reality, if not in name. The only way that would change for any of them would be if it were given a Major-Archbishop (which is very unlikely) in which case the Pope would not be choosing the subsequent Archbishops, but confirming the synod’s choice.

Michael:

One could as easily argue that they belong as a separate Sui Iuris church, and the Eparchy of Muchachevo effectively is.

As it sits, the Synod of the Metropolia selects 3 candidates, and the pope picks one of them, for the Metropolitan AND for each eparch. (see the CCEO).

That neither Muchachevo nor Presov has any say in it is indicative of Rome actually following Eastern Tradition (note capital T) of National Churches.

Now, the Ukrainians in their diaspora are FAR more united than the Ruthenians, and also far more ethnic, as well. Carpetho-Rusyns from Europe and Ruthenians from America do differ liturgically, musically, and in other areas as well.

It is no different than the situation with the OCA and the Moscow Patriarchate: same faith, same source traditions, but separate due to diverging traditions (note lower case t) due to serving different cultures. It is proper and just that they are separated administratively and in hierarchy. Likewise, it is proper and just that the European Carpetho-Rusyns are separate in administration and hierarchy from the American Ruthenians. (And, for reference, “Ruthenian” is a latinization in itself…)

 

[Diak]

The Greek Catholic Church in Slovakia has been raised to Metropolitan status:
tkkbs.sk/view.php?cisloclanku=20080130001
In English: grkat.nfo.sk/Bratislava/english.html

Many years to the new Eparch of Bratislava, Kyr Peter! Mnohaya i blahaya lita Vladyka!!!

 

[Ungcsertez]

The Greek Catholic Church in Slovakia has been raised to Metropolitan status:
tkkbs.sk/view.php?cisloclanku=20080130001
In English: grkat.nfo.sk/Bratislava/english.html

Many years to the new Eparch of Bratislava, Kyr Peter! Mnohaya
i blahaya lita Vladyka!!!

I’m curious how many Greek Catholic churches there are in Western Slovakia that an eparchy was established? Or was this a loop hole used to justify the creation of a “Sui Juris” Metropolitan Byzantine Church of Slovakia?

Ung

 

[Diak]

I’m curious how many Greek Catholic churches there are in Western Slovakia that an eparchy was established? Or was this a loop hole used to justify the creation of a “Sui Juris” Metropolitan Byzantine Church of Slovakia?

Ung

And what becomes of Mukachevo? It seems since Ukrainian independence the clergy interact much more with the UGCC rather than the Slovak eparchies - they are usually present and active in the UGCC Synod meetings, send their seminarians to L’viv to study, the UGCC Studites and Redemptorists have houses in that Eparchy, etc.
FDRLB

 

[Ungcsertez]

My former pastor, Father Thomas Loya, is also of Magyar descent. He is originally from Ohio.

As I see it, Archbishop Ireland was acting within formal policy of the Roman Catholic church in North America, as approved by the Holy See. (Although he might have used a bit more common courtesy…another issue.)

Here are the relavent passages…

First Plenary Council of Baltimore - May, 1852

3 The Roman Ritual, adopted by the First Council of Baltimore, is to be observed in all dioceses, and all are forbidden to introduce customs or rites foreign to the Roman usage.

Second Plenary Council of Baltimore - October, 1866

Title v, Of the Sacraments.-
(i) The Roman Ritual and the Baltimore “Ceremonial” are to be followed.

Fr. Loya a Magyar Greek Catholic? I know there are questions about the Loya family from Znacevo, if they were always Greek Catholic. If not, that would mean that they might have been Hungarian Roman Catholics. But his great-grandmother was a Bachinsky, a truly Rusyn Greek Catholic family, with many generations of priests and a least one bishop in the family. FYI

U-C