Do Eastern Catholics need to be taught Latin theology?

[Woodstock]

:crying: Why do they hate us…:crying:

“There is no darkness but ignorance.” -William Shakespeare

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”

“Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind” -John Tillotson

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

“By ignorance we mistake, and by mistakes we learn”

 

[ASimpleSinner]

:crying: Why do they hate us…:crying:

I don’t think they do or they did.

Visions and agendas of Americanism that Eastern Catholics and a number of Latin ethnics did not neatly fit into informed more of this unfortunate nonsense then anything.

 

[Hesychios]

And now if I could implore you to take the next step and make the correlation between this text from the regional council of Baltimore and demonstrate it was in refernece to and with view of precluding Eastern Catholics…

Using these quotes from a council that predates our arrival, out of context and without fuller explination is a curious and provacative thing.

I took my quotes out of articles on the Plenary Councils of Baltimore in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. They indicate formal policy for the American church.

Aside from the Latin rite, what other possibilities for foreign rites are there? I have to ask, why address this at all, and twice in succession at that?

The bishops were not unaware of other rites in the church, they simply wanted uniformity in America, nothing personal really. The numbers may have been infinitismally small, but Catholics of the eastern rites were showing up…or expected to show up, possibly either as seamen at the wharves of major ports or as immigrants. The bishops of the USA did not want this to develop into a major movement.

I suspect that after 1848, when serfdom was abolished in the Austro-Hungarian empire, the issue of mixed rites in America became a very real potential problem and the Synod fathers acted accordingly. By 1852 the bishops were composing a canon about it in Baltimore.

As I stated, Archbishop Ireland was acting according to established policy of the American synod. What happened 15 years later (with the appointment of bishop Ortynsky) was a form of damage control on the part of the Holy See.

But not especially because Eastern Catholics in North America were leaving. It does not appear that the church was all that concerned about the possibility, or they would have done much more much sooner. The issue was that the Greek Catholics back in Europe were being influenced by this movement and leaving too, and the Hungarian government went into a panic. It apparently was, for the government of Hungary, a national security issue.

This is all I plan to state on this subject, you are free to draw your own conclusions. As you probably realize, there are excellent resources on this subject in places over the internet, so everyone is invited to do some Googling and do research on their own and reach their own conclusions.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[Aramis]

Anglican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, Gallican Rite… and the Polish and Irish Ritual Traditions within the Roman Rite. Each of these was part of the Roman Church, and yet, were foreign traditions to the US part of the Church.

Oh, and the Lutherans, too.

These were the rites specifically barred by the Council of Baltimore as a threat.

The Eastern churches were a side casualty.

 

[Alexius]

Anglican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, Gallican Rite… and the Polish and Irish Ritual Traditions within the Roman Rite. Each of these was part of the Roman Church, and yet, were foreign traditions to the US part of the Church.

Oh, and the Lutherans, too.

These were the rites specifically barred by the Council of Baltimore as a threat.

The Eastern churches were a side casualty.

By Polish ritual tradition, do you mean the Glagolitic rite?

 

[dvdjs]

Anglican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, Gallican Rite… and the Polish and Irish Ritual Traditions within the Roman Rite. Each of these was part of the Roman Church, and yet, were foreign traditions to the US part of the Church. … These were the rites specifically barred by the Council of Baltimore …

Actually it is not clear that “rite” (in particular “customs or rites”) does not pertain more to various rituals that may have been from local traditions of ethnic group or another. For better or worse that Amercian bishops were working, in the face of strong anti-catholicism, and know-nothing pogroms, to develop a unified cohesive church.

Hesychios’s idea that this action was taken to preclude Greek Catholics from the US, just doesn’t fit with the time line. The wave of immigrants from Austria-Hungary was much later. Was immigration even allowed out of Austria-Hungary into the US at the time of the council? Greek Catholics were probably unknown in the US until the 1880’s. The first GC priest was some thee decades (and a civil war) after the council. Sorry, Hesychios, this idea doesn’t seem to make any sense. Perhaps you can supply some links to some of the on-line material that to which you alluded.

 

[mgy100]

Aramaic, people, Aramaic…

He spoke Aramaic, there are a few Eastern Christians in Iraq and Syria who still speak it.

Koiné Greek was the most wide-spread language in the empire at Jesus’ time, so I am told. I can imagine Jesus knowing speaking this language as well. At Jesus’ time Latin was the governmental language/business language/international language. Sort of the position English holds in the Global Economy/international language.

Should Eastern Catholics learn Latin Theology? If you mean learning novenas etc… no. Regardless of Rite there is a Deposit of Faith that every Christian is to adhere to. The teachings/theology that rests in the Deposit of Faith is to be taught to all Christians regardless if you are Byzantine or Latin or Maronite.

 

[porthos11]

Eastern Catholics should learn Latin theology just as Latin Catholics must learn Eastern theology. One does not have to adopt the other’s theological expressions, but these lead to greater understanding of the Faith.

For example, I as a Latin, have benefited much from the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception. Even though they do not call it that, and neither do they express the dogma in the same manner as the Papal bull that promulgated it, the Eastern expression is easily finest way of explaining that particular truth.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Actually it is not clear that “rite” (in particular “customs or rites”) does not pertain more to various rituals that may have been from local traditions of ethnic group or another. For better or worse that Amercian bishops were working, in the face of strong anti-catholicism, and know-nothing pogroms, to develop a unified cohesive church.

Hesychios’s idea that this action was taken to preclude Greek Catholics from the US, just doesn’t fit with the time line. The wave of immigrants from Austria-Hungary was much later. Was immigration even allowed out of Austria-Hungary into the US at the time of the council? Greek Catholics were probably unknown in the US until the 1880’s. The first GC priest was some thee decades (and a civil war) after the council. Sorry, Hesychios, this idea doesn’t seem to make any sense. Perhaps you can supply some links to some of the on-line material that to which you alluded.

DVDJS - thank you. You stated more clearly was I was struggling to point out earlier.

 

[Aramis]

By Polish ritual tradition, do you mean the Glagolitic rite?

No. Just the distinctive practices of the Polish Roman-Ritual that are not part of the Roman mass.

Processions with the infant of prague are the most obvious. Mixed use of statue and icon, sometimes statue in front of matching icon-style painting.

The kind of stuff you might miss if you just come for mass and then leave, but as an outsider, if you wind up in the parish, you feel so very lost if you haven’t been raised with it.

The very kinds of stuff that Cardinal Murphy O’Connor is griping about the Poles in the UK doing!

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios’s idea that this action was taken to preclude Greek Catholics from the US, just doesn’t fit with the time line. The wave of immigrants from Austria-Hungary was much later. Was immigration even allowed out of Austria-Hungary into the US at the time of the council? Greek Catholics were probably unknown in the US until the 1880’s. The first GC priest was some thee decades (and a civil war) after the council. Sorry, Hesychios, this idea doesn’t seem to make any sense. Perhaps you can supply some links to some of the on-line material that to which you alluded.

No problem, I would not expect everyone to agree with me, I just put the facts out with my interpretation of them, and you look at them your own way.

But one must not speak in absolutes, I think it is incorrect to imply there were “no” Eastern Catholics reaching America before the 1880’s. They may have been few in number but clearly they (like the Poles, also from the Austro-Hungarian empire) were going to be coming. I think it makes perfect sense and the timeline fits very well. In fact it couldn’t be better.

There were six Provincial Councils before 1848 and none of them addressed “foreign rites”. The First Plenary Council in 1852 did.

1848 was a Crises year in Europe. An absolutely terrifying era to live through with many governments (including BTW, the Papal States) rocked to their foundations.

One practical result of this was the abolition of serfdom in many places in Europe for the first time, including areas that had Eastern Catholics in abundance, tied to the land. These people were now free to pursue their own destinies (subject to the resources available to them). They were going to be a human wave across the landscape if their own circumstances did not improve at home.

The USA was beginning to grow economically, the railroads and mines and mills of America were looking for new cheap sources of labor…sending agents to Europe and placing advertisements enticing the poor to migration. The bishops were very aware of this, because they were vigorously recruiting priests and nuns from Europe as well, to meet the anticipated need (they always fell short of help).

Bishop Ireland himself was actively involved in associations intended to encourage immigration of Irish. He knew the process.

Funny that the bishops worked so hard to recruit Irish, German, Italian and Spanish language priests (Archbishop Lamy of Santa Fe recruited Cubans and Mexica priests, failing that he recruited French from his home province). They encouraged Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines and others, actually often giviing them parishes to use as home bases to get started.

None of them recruited Byzantine Catholic priests, none of them. Certainly not in 1852 when there were next to none, but not in 1870 either, nor 1880, nor 1890. The BC communities had to raise their money and write to bishops in Europe themselves.

 

[Hesychios]

Anglican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, Gallican Rite… and the Polish and Irish Ritual Traditions within the Roman Rite. Each of these was part of the Roman Church, and yet, were foreign traditions to the US part of the Church.

I would have to ask you, as Simple Sinner has asked…now if I could implore you to take the next step and make the correlation between this text from the regional council of Baltimore and demonstrate it was in reference to and with view of precluding the Anglican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, Gallican Rite… and the Polish and Irish Ritual Traditions within the Roman Rite.

The nineteenth century was an age when all maner of religious orders were being invited (even implored and coerced) to come to America, there was just so much work to do.

Can you provide any evidence that even one Carmelite, Dominican etc. institution was barred or suppressed on that basis?

I have never ever encountered it.

Anglican Rite…

Not Catholic…at least, not at that time.

Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite,

This claim could have merit if there were enough immigrants to clamor for such from their home countries, but in reality their numbers have been small in Europe for centuries and never amounted to much in America. There has been a notable lack of available priests of those rites, so the danger of them being introduced in North America must have been miniscule, especially when one considers that they never even appeared in Latin America, which had both Spanish and Italian migrant communities continously for centuries.

Nevertheless I agree that the policy of the Roman Catholic church has been to consistantly suppress these ancient church rites. That they should be the subject of a special canon in the USA is indeed remarkable to contemplate.

Oh, and the Lutherans, too.

You are starting to amaze me.

These were the rites specifically barred by the Council of Baltimore as a threat.

Please provide any evidence you have for these assertions. I am willing and eager to learn more history.

The Eastern churches were a side casualty.

I am not necessarily going to disagree here. By some logic they are all side casualties.

My point is clearly laid out:
Archbishop Ireland was working within established Roman Catholic church policy. Uniformity, not diversity, was the ideal of the age. I assert that he was on good ground as far as Canon Law for the American church was concerned. All foreign rites are forbidden.

So if I should buy your argument that the Dominican Rite was intended to be forbidden as foreign, how am I to interpret the bishops’ attitude toward a rite from eastern Europe or the Middle East, or India?

It is clear that the decrees of the Plenary Councils had no force until approval came from the Holy See, as the fathers stated themselves.

If the Holy See approves the banning of foreign rites in America, while it has a longstanding (300 years by this time) agreement with Eastern Orthodox-Catholics in Europe (See Union of Brest), what does this say about the promises made to them? What does this imply about the Holy Sees stewardship over Eastern Catholics?

Does Praestantia Ritus Latini mean anything to you?

Go back and reread Woodstocks excellent recap of history of the Byzantine Catholics since the Baltimore Councils.

See if you can find Father Hal Stockerts excellent “Clash of the Titans” series of articles. I could not find them the last time I looked.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

But one must not speak in absolutes, I think it is incorrect to imply there were “no” Eastern Catholics reaching America before the 1880’s. They may have been few in number but clearly they (like the Poles, also from the Austro-Hungarian empire) were going to be coming. I think it makes perfect sense and the timeline fits very well. In fact it couldn’t be better.

I don’t doubt there were some Eastern immigrants before the large wave of immigration occurred, but I ask what were the American Bishops to do about it? How many of them would have any familiarity with Eastern Rites to celebrate them even if they decided to do that?

Funny that the bishops worked so hard to recruit Irish, German, Italian and Spanish language priests (Archbishop Lamy of Santa Fe recruited Cubans and Mexica priests, failing that he recruited French from his home province). They encouraged Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines and others, actually often giviing them parishes to use as home bases to get started.

None of them recruited Byzantine Catholic priests, none of them. Certainly not in 1852 when there were next to none, but not in 1870 either, nor 1880, nor 1890. The BC communities had to raise their money and write to bishops in Europe themselves.

Again, this is a question of what could the Bishops have done? A Latin Bishop cannot ordain an Eastern Rite Priest without a special Papal Indult. A Latin Priest cannot celebrate an Eastern Liturgy without special permission - assuming he knew how to even if he had permission. The normal areas to contact in Europe were not wellsprings of Byzantine Catholics - Italy, France, Spain, England, Ireland, even Poland were centers of Latin Catholicism, not Eastern Catholicism. Would they have known who to contact and had the ability to contact anyone in a country of Byzantine Catholicism and have someone be available and able to come to America? Was there a large enough need for the few immigrants there were before the first large wave of immigration? How much responsibility did the Latin Bishops have for the Eastern Catholics - their primary concern being the Latin Catholics in their diocese?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

What does a synod of Latin Bishops concerning the Roman Rite in Latin dioceses have to do with Byzantine Catholics?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

None of them recruited Byzantine Catholic priests, none of them. Certainly not in 1852 when there were next to none, but not in 1870 either, nor 1880, nor 1890. The BC communities had to raise their money and write to bishops in Europe themselves.

What are you thinking this proves or demonstrates?

There were six Provincial Councils before 1848 and none of them addressed “foreign rites”. The First Plenary Council in 1852 did.

Again, reviewing many things out there, to paint the actions of this regional council in antebellum America as a sort of circling the wagons and prescribing a preventitive measure specificaly against or with Greek Catholics or Eastern rituals seems rather a stretch.

I have reasonable doubts that the bishops who even had vague notions about who and what we were at the time of Know-Nothing ascendency were all that worried about an impending Greek Catholic invasion.

As an aside, except to remind Eastern Catholics of our tumultuous past in the US - no one can forget it - I am losing sight of the intent of this discussion of history. If it is intended to engender feelings of ill will, one wonders what that will accomplish.

I will make no presumptions about the motive of your effort on this one Michael. I will say that I have seen others in other fora do similar with the provacative intent of stirring up feelings or anxieties coupled with a rather easy target to villify.

As frequently as not, among certain parties looking to make this jaunt down “memory lane” I am left with the feeling that this is a sort of sideways argument against our remaining Catholic as in “See how badly you were treated? tsk, tsk!”

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Should an Eastern Catholic who has a love for a Latin devotion - i.e., novenas, Rosary, etc. - be berated and thought of as traitorous toward their Eastern traditions? Should an Eastern parish be treated the same way if their is a desire in it to have said devotions - i.e., Rosary before Liturgy.

Should a Latin Catholic be thought ill of for a love of an Eastern devotion - i.e., icons, akathists, etc.? Should an Eastern parish be treated the same way if there is a desire in it to have said devotions - i.e., veneration of an icon?

Should a Latin Catholic be condemned as a latinizer for presenting or suggesting or encouraging said Latin devotions (not forcibly imposing them)?

Should and Eastern Catholic be condemned as a byzatinizer for presenting or suggesting or encouraging said Eastern devotions (not forcibly imposing them)?

 

[Hesychios]

Hello,

What does a synod of Latin Bishops concerning the Roman Rite in Latin dioceses have to do with Byzantine Catholics?

I had thought I was done here, and I don’t care to address these issues any further, but this simple question is not being picked up by anyone so I thought I should respond.

Until recent decades the local Catholic bishop had responsibility for all Catholics in their territory. There was no concept of separate Sui Iuris churches, only different rites within the church. That is the short answer.

Today the local ordinary (almost invariably a Latin bishop) has formal responsibility for all non-Latin Catholics within the bounds of his diocese that are otherwise not served.

It has been mentioned that the Latin bishops cannot ordain Byzantine (or Chaldean or Armenian) priests, but they can incardinate them. (Archbishop Chaput has done just that in Denver.) What is necessary is that they ask for priests from another diocese or ask for an ordaining bishop to come and perform the essentials.

When a bishop was to be named for the Byzantine rite Catholics in 1905, the possibility was opposed by the local Latin hierarchy. Many of these refused to allow him (Ortynsky) to function in their dioceses (Rome gave them that option) after he was named anyway.

More parishes continued to leave the church until World War One and the Bolshevik revolution which suppressed the Russian church. Then Rome began to reapply restrictions (such as mandatory celibacy, being actually for the second time) upon the Byzantine Catholic churches, it was also felt safe by then to demand the titles to their properties.

Another schism followed, but this time the BC as a group turned to the Ecumenical Patriarch and asked to be admitted instead, although I do know of several new Ruthenian parishes of the Russian Metropolia at that time as well.

That’s all I wish to state. But as I declared earlier the facts are all out there, people can read it for themselves. Individual parishes (Catholic and Orthodox alike) have wonderful stories to read on their websites. Google is a wonderful tool.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello,

What does a synod of Latin Bishops concerning the Roman Rite in Latin dioceses have to do with Byzantine Catholics?

Ordinaries.

 

[manualman]

Yet, the Latin Church doesn’t cry byzantinzaiton!!!

I’m pretty sure I couldn’t cry that even if I felt I needed to!

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I’m pretty sure I couldn’t cry that even if I felt I needed to!

How we love our unpronounceables!