Eastern "Cafeteria Catholics"

[Nine_Two]

well said. It can also be said of the Orthodox as well.

That was random.

 

[Peter_J]

Trent happened.

Indeed. Places that had been using a certain rite (e.g. the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc.) for 200 years could continue using that rite. If not, they had to adopt the Roman Rite (which nowadays is often called “the Latin Rite”). Result, big increase in the use of the Roman Rite, followed by further increase (gradually) over the next few centuries.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

For the last few weeks I’ve been trying to learn all I can about the Eastern Catholic Churches because I’m considering changing rites when I go back to the states.

I’ve visited several different Easter Catholic forums and I’ve noticed a trend and I’d like to know what the Easterners on here think.

I’ve lost count of the times I read someone say, 'I’m an Eastern Catholic so I don’t have to listen to or follow what the Pope teaches, that’s only for the Latin Church."

And I’m talking about matters of faith and morals here. A discussion concerning contraception was getting a lot of attention and one of the forum members said that the teachings and ban on contraception found in Human Vitae were not applicable to Eastern Catholics. He went on to say that contraception was between he and his pastor and it didn’t matter what the Pope said because he was an Eastern Catholic.

Now of course this is absurd but the overall vibe I’ve gotten from Eastern Catholics is that while they are indeed in union with the Pope, what he says and teaches can be ignored, even on matters of faith and morals.

So I’m curious as to what you think.

I’m highly sympathetic to eastern Christianity, though I’m canonically Latin.

These are complex issues, but concerning the example you gave… that forum member is very clearly in the wrong. Contraception is not immoral because Pope Paul VI said so in Humanae Vitae; rather, Pope Paul VI said so in Humanae Vitae because it is wrong.

The papacy is not and never was the source of that moral teaching. So even if one rejects the pope’s ability to define and dogmatize universally binding teachings on faith and morals (and I agree with you that in some sense this reality must be acknowledged by all Catholics), it still makes no sense to use that as an excuse to use contraception.

Why do we always say “we must obey the Pope”? Not that there is anything wrong with it, but first and foremost is that we must obey our own bishop and priest.

Well said. Sometimes I don’t understand this preoccupation people have with the papacy (whether positive or negative).

The pope wears three hats. He is the bishop of the diocese of Rome, he is the patriarch of the west (though he has dropped this title) which means he is the head of the Latin Church, and he is the supreme pontiff (that is head of the universal Catholic Church).

So when the pope speaks we must look to what hats he is wearing at the moment.

When/if he says that female altar servers are not allowed or communion can only be received in the hand for the diocese of Rome he is wearing his bishop hat and what he has commanded is only for the diocese of Rome, not the Latin Church, and not the universal Church.

When he speaks to the Latin bishops and tells them that celibacy is integral to the secular priesthood and that there will be no change to the discipline (law) that says that all secular priests must be celibate he is wearing his patriarchal hat and his words are only for the Latin Church.

So there are somethings that the pope commands/says that Eastern Catholics do not follow.

Some Catholics, mainly Latins in my experience, have trouble with this concept and think that every word from the pope is binding upon all Catholics such as his preference that those receiving the Eucharist from him must do so kneeling and on the tongue.

Well said!

I think andremiguel’s viewpoint is one that is shared by many Latin Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike. Its that there is no such thing as Eastern Catholics, only Eastern Rite Roman Catholics. The same way there are no Anglican Catholics, only Anglican Use Catholics.

I agree with you that this conflation in the minds of many Latin Catholics is unfortunate, as the two are not in the same category at all: Anglican Use Catholics are canonically members of the Latin Church; in fact, their rite is still considered to be the Roman Rite. That’s why it’s not called “the Anglican Rite” but rather the Anglican use.

Whereas neither of those is true for eastern Catholics, who are both ritually and canonically distinct from the Latin Church and its western liturgical, spiritual, and theological patrimony.

Same here. Roman Catholics either think I’m Protestant or I’m Roman Catholic with a different kind of Mass. I’ve even been told I cannot continue being a Roman Catholic Catechist because I am “non-practicing”, even though I attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday and for all 12 Great Feasts, plus some other notable feasts.

That’s horrific. I have nothing else to say that wouldn’t be a sin against charity concerning those who told you so.

The term “Roman Church” was used by the Roman Church at least as early as Trent. I haven’t taken the time or put the effort into seeing if it appears before that point, at any rate it was used by Rome while Luther was still alive (if barely).

Doesn’t “Roman Church” generally refer to the Diocese of Rome itself? Well, except when sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant polemicists used it to refer to the communion of churches in communion with the Church of Rome, that is…

And the Bishop must obey the Pope.
In Internet times, We know everyday what the Pope says.

But you’ve got to keep in mind what Friar David said (I quoted him in this reply) about the pope’s various hats. It would be a mistake to construe everything the pope says as applicable to one’s own community. Who is he talking to? Is he exercising any level of authority? etc.

Technically, the *Roman *Rite is a rite of the *Latin *Church, along with Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc. – although those other western rites are so restricted as to be negligible.

Indeed. It’s a distinction that needs to be learned more widely. Every time I hear someone refer to the “Latin Rite” I find myself wanting to ask, “Which one?”

It doesn’t matter. The Papacy and the Church predates the internet by almost 2000 years. We don’t suddenly switch to obeying the Pope just because the Pope got an iPad. The ecclesioligy of the Church states that we are under our own bishop. Unless you live in the diocese of Rome, you are not directly under the Pope. Bypassing your own bishop means you are not connected to the Pope in any which way.

Well said, Constantine. The proper head of one’s church is the local bishop.

So the pope is like a bishop of bishops? An Universal Bishop?

I wouldn’t say that. I find it misleading. To me such a title - “bishop of bishops” - would imply that the pope’s universal authority relates to the authority of other bishops in the same manner in which other bishops’ authority relates to the authority of their priests.

And that is false. It is neo-Ultramontanism and is often called the Absolutist Petrine view in this forum.

A priest’s authority is entirely dependent upon that of his bishop, who can micromanage whatever he wants within his diocese, to whatever extent he wants. On the other hand, a bishop’s status as the proper Ordinary of his church (diocese) is not something that has its origin or validity in papal delegation. The episcopate is of divine establishment as much as the papacy is, and it is the episcopate that the Church Fathers - think St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, etc. - identify as basically the crowning feature of authority in the Catholic Church.

The pope of Rome, as the successor of Saint Peter, is the head bishop for the entire Catholic Church. His authority over the Church is supreme, universal, ordinary, and his by virtue of the Church’s divine constitution, but he is not the default authority in a place where the Christian faithful are united around the Eucharistic table under a different bishop.

 

[steve_b]

Technically, the *Roman *Rite is a rite of the *Latin *Church, along with Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc. – although those other western rites are so restricted as to be negligible.

Technically, Roman Rite / Latin Rite, are used interchangably

From EWTN
ROMAN/LATIN FAMILY OF LITURGICAL RITES
The Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the world and one of the five Patriarchal Sees of the early Church (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). Founded by St. Peter in 42 AD it was consecrated by the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul during the persecution of Nero (63–67 AD). It has maintained a continual existence since then and is the source of a family of Rites in the West. Considerable scholarship (such as that of Fr. Louis Boyer in Eucharist) suggests the close affinity of the Roman Rite proper with the Jewish prayers of the synagogue, which also accompanied the Temple sacrifices. While the origin of the current Rite, even in the reform of Vatican II, can be traced directly only to the 4th century, these connections point to an ancient apostolic tradition brought to that city that was decidedly Jewish in origin.
After the Council of Trent it was necessary to consolidate liturgical doctrine and practice in the face of the Reformation. Thus, Pope St. Pius V imposed the Rite of Rome on the Latin Church (that subject to him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West), allowing only smaller Western Rites with hundreds of years of history to remain. Younger Rites of particular dioceses or regions ceased to exist.
As a consequence of the Second Vatican Council’s* Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Pope Paul VI undertook a reform of the Mass of the Roman Rite, promulgating a revised rite with the Missal of 1970. This Missal has since been modified twice (1975 and 2002). Mass celebrated in accordance with this missal is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
At the time of the revised Missal’s promulgation in 1970 almost all Catholics assumed that the previous rite, that of the Missal of 1962, had been abolished. By decision of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI this general assumption has been declared false and the right ofLatin Rite priests* to celebrate Mass according to the former missal has been affirmed (Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, 7 July 2007). Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missal of 1962 constitutes the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
• Roman – The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general.
– **Ordinary Formof the Roman Rite*. *Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1970, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, currently in its third edition (2002). The vernacular editions of this Missal, as well as the rites of the other sacraments, are translated from the Latin typical editions revised after the Second Vatican Council.
– Extraordinary Form of the *Roman Rite. *Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1962, promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. The other sacraments are celebrated according to the Roman Ritual in force at the time of the Second Vatican Council. The Extraordinary Form is most notable for being almost entirely in Latin. In addition to institutes which have the faculty to celebrate the Extraordinary Form routinely, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, any Latin Rite priest may now offer the Mass and other sacraments in accordance with norms of Summorum Pontificum.

 

[steve_b]

That was random.

But just as valid…true?

 

[Nine_Two]

But just as valid…true?

It is as valid as the fact that platypus’s are poisonous.

It may be true but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. In the context you put it, it comes off as an attempt to put down those who are Orthodox for absolutely no reason.

 

[Nine_Two]

Doesn’t “Roman Church” generally refer to the Diocese of Rome itself? Well, except when sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant polemicists used it to refer to the communion of churches in communion with the Church of Rome, that is…

At Trent it was used to mean the whole thing.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

At Trent it was used to mean the whole thing.

Oh, I never noticed that! Interesting. I guess it makes sense, given that the context was western Christianity and the rise of Protestantism.

Do you have an example/citation? I’m curious enough that I’d like to see the exact spot for myself.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001
Doesn’t “Roman Church” generally refer to the Diocese of Rome itself? Well, except when sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant polemicists used it to refer to the communion of churches in communion with the Church of Rome, that is…

That’s interesting, but are you sure? I wonder if you might be thinking of Vatican I.

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s interesting, but are you sure? I wonder if you might be thinking of Vatican I.

No, definitely Trent. I’ll see if I can find the reference later on, I don’t have the time right now.

 

[Peter_J]

No, definitely Trent. I’ll see if I can find the reference later on, I don’t have the time right now.

Thanks.

 

[Nine_Two]

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

It uses the term in the Bull of Indiction several times. I suppose though that as it is referring to the cardinals, who technically hold churches in Rome, you could argue it means the Bishopric of Rome, although I myself don’t buy that