Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I thought Vatican II stated that no one rite was greater than another?

And not just Vatican I. I am not disputing that.

Take it this way, sometimes people change Rites. Why is that if they are all equal? Because subjectively, it can benefit individual to come to different Rite.

So why did Roman Rite adopt Gallican elements? Not because Gallican Rite was superior. But some elements were of so great profit to it that Roman Rite considered them “superior” to their current ones and they adopted them.

This can also happen in the East. One Rite can adopt elements from other Rite that are currently more beneficial for the faithful. Rosary could spread in the East or Akathist could spread in the West. We don’t know. Rites evolve by local practices becoming prevalent or by adopting elements from other Rite. It’s all history… not saying one Rite is explicitly better than the others or worse than the others.

 

[Anesti33]

Take it this way, sometimes people change Rites. Why is that if they are all equal? Because subjectively, it can benefit individual to come to different Rite.

An individual never merely “changes Rites”. Individuals change canonical inscription to a Church. That means a new bishop, a new parish, a new pastor, a new congregation. The liturgy may be changed incidentally, but what is really changing is the people.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

OrbisNonSufficit:

Take it this way, sometimes people change Rites. Why is that if they are all equal? Because subjectively, it can benefit individual to come to different Rite.

An individual never merely “changes Rites”. Individuals change canonical inscription to a Church. That means a new bishop, a new parish, a new pastor, a new congregation. The liturgy may be changed incidentally, but what is really changing is the people.

Most of all, it means changing how one observes fasts and feasts. A Roman Catholic fasts only 2 days a year - Ash Wednesday & Good Friday, and even then it’s only smaller meals with no meat.

By contrast, the Byzantine & Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches traditionally fast 4 times a year - Great Fast & Holy Week (46.5 days), Apostles’ Fast (long or short depending on the date of Pascha), Dormition Fast (14 days) and St. Philip’s Fast (40 days) plus one day fasts on Nativity Eve (Dec. 24), Theophany Eve (Jan. 5), the Beheading of St. John the Baptist (Aug. 29) and the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (which is coming up tomorrow, Sept. 14). To top it all off, traditionally we abstain from meat on almost every Wednesday & Friday (except the Privileged Weeks).

Example: In the RC Church Jan. 6 is Epiphany/Three Kings which remembers the visit of the Magi to the Infant Jesus, and in some ethnic groups one gets extra presents. In the Byzantine and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches, Jan. 6 is Theophany - the baptism of Our Lord by St. John the Forerunner and the revelation of the Holy Trinity.

Also, it affects the way one receives the mysteries/sacraments. Traditionally, in the UGCC one fasts from midnight before receiving the Holy Eucharist but many observe the RC Eucharistic Fast which is three hours from alcohol and other food and drink for one hour before Mass.

N.B. That 3 hour rule from alcohol is still in effect.

True story: When we had our last exam, my classmates and I went down to the bar to celebrate. I had white zinfandel 2x and one of my classmates bought me a shot of peach schnapps. I walked back to campus and realized it was Ascension Thursday!!! Oh no, I have to go to Mass!

I talked to Fr. H., our chaplain. He said I could not receive Holy Communion until 3 hours after my last drink. So I had to wait until the last Mass at 7 p.m. in order to go to Holy Communion.

So changing particular Churches or Rites is NOT to be taken lightly.

One of our late cantors was RC but his wife was Ukrainian Greek Catholic. He loved her and our Liturgy so much that he canonically switched to the UGCC. He was at every service except Nativity Eve, when his family had the traditional dinner of the seven fishes. Afaik, that was the only Italian tradition that he kept after his switch to the UGCC. (And being Italian, he had a great singing voice.) Eternal memory!

P.S. All dates are Gregorian calendar. Julian calendar +13 days.

 

[Alexandria2020]

So changing particular Churches or Rites is NOT to be taken lightly.

yup, very true indeed.

 

[StephenW]

I understand your desire for full communion. I personally share that desire in a very big way. As much as you may want this, however, the Catholic Church and the various Orthodox and Oriental Churches are not all in communion with each other, let alone in communion with the Catholic Church.

The Church is one, but these various Churches are not one with each other. The Catholic Church holds that the fullness of the Church subsists in the Catholic Church. All these other Churches share in this one Church, the Catholic Church, but only imperfectly, that is, to one degree or another. The one Church is the Catholic Church. People can leave it, but they can never divide it. It is a simple contradiction, then, to say that what is clearly divided (various Orthodox, Oriental Churches) are one, let alone the one Church.

You will find that this is what the various Orthodox Churches also assert, that they are the one Church. I hesitate to generalize like this about what the “Orthodox” believe because there is not complete communion or agreement among them on all matters. There is no “Orthodox Church”, but many Churches that identify themselves as Orthodox. There is a Catholic Church, and there are many particular Church that are in communion with each other in this one Catholic Church. A particular Church, however, is Catholic by its communion with one Church, the Church of Rome. Please take a look at numbers 834-835 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”

835 “Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or … the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she puts down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world.” The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches “unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church.”

 

[StephenW]

But Rome will likely have to back off from its claims to supremacy and universal jurisdiction as this was never really how Rome operated prior to Vatican I.

This is easily shown to be historically incorrect. Where are you getting your information? Have you studied the history or are you just going on hearsay?

Regarding Vatican I, which is an ecumenical council, several aspects of the papacy were defined. As such, the teachings of Vatican I are permanent. Vatican I, however, must be understood in light of Vatican II because Vatican I was suspended due to the Franco-Prussian War. In other words, Vatican I was not able to complete its work, which was to include the Church’s teaching on the bishops and collegiality. Vatican II explicitly affirms the teaching of Vatican I and then goes on to teach about the bishops, etc.

 

[StephenW]

While there are theological differences keep the two out of communion, the only “real” issue is papal supremacy. If Rome could sit down with the Eastern Bishops and come to an understanding of what papal primacy means and looks like, then all the other issues would be quickly overcome and reunification could be had

Your idea of hierarchs sitting down and working things out regarding the papacy is a good desire, I suppose, but it is far more complicated that all that. The papacy is not the only real issue. For example, among many Orthodox Churches (if not all) one can divorce and remarry up to three times. In the Catholic Church, one can divorce, because that is a legal matter of the state, but one cannot remarry as long as one’s spouse is alive. This is a serious problem for restoring full communion between the various Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. What will be done with those who are in their second and third marriages while their previous spouses are still alive? And will all the Orthodox Churches agree to no more divorce and remarriage? Even if their leadership agrees (impossible short of a divine intervention–a miracle), what do you think the laity of those Churches will do? Do you think they might just go into schism, get some bishops of their own and start yet another Orthodox Church? That is typically how things go.

I mean no disrespect, but what you are saying is quite naïve. You think that “Rome could sit down with the Eastern Bishops”? Which Eastern Bishops? Do you mean the Orthodox and Oriental bishops of the world? The bishops of these Church cannot even sit down with each other, let alone come and sit down with the Pope.

Besides these problem, and others like them, there is a long, complicated and painful history involved in the separation of the Churches that should not be underestimated.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It should be added that all Fridays in Lent are days of abstinence, and I think most observant Catholics fast on those days as well even though fasting is not obligatory on those days.

When it comes to the various rites, I think all which are united with the Holy See should be fostered and treasured, no matter how different they may be from the Latin rite. But I do think there is something going on that is hard to deny, and that is the overall cultural effect of westernization and particularly that part there of that is Americanization.

Who, 1,000 or even 500 years ago, would have imagined that virtually the entire world, from China to Japan to India, to Turkey, would have adopted western dress almost to a man (or woman)? Who would have supposed that the language of the tiny, backward island of Britain would become almost the “universal second language”? Who would have thought the modes of transportation, the styles of construction, the nature of medical treatment, the business practices, and even accounting, would be uniform worldwide?

Whatever the culture, there are centrifugal cultural forces that impel their people out of their own culture and into the nearly universal “westernized” culture found worldwide. If a person is virtually Americanized, whether living in Greece or Ukraine or Lebanon, the rites in those cultures will gradually seem more and more “foreign”.

Westerners are not immune to it either. The ever-greater simplification of rites and practices is a symptom of a slow separation from older cultural practices and customs. It’s hard to know where it will all end up. But Easterners should not think that westernizations adopted by their various churches are somehow a Latin conspiracy. As I said, Latins are subject to it as well.

 

[Bithynian]

what you are saying is quite naïve

There’s quite a lot of naivete, I think, from many Catholics regarding their perception of the possibility of communion with EO. I think much of it is founded on the peculiar sort of ecumenical over-optimism that characterised much of the 1960s.

Three things are apparent to me:

(1) Western Catholics are largely exposed to one narrative regarding communion with the EO. It is characteristically Hellenocentric, and more over, associated with the theology of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

(2) Traditionalist theology is much more ubiquitous in historical EO regions than in the Catholic Church, and anti-ecumenism is highly characteristic of traditionalist EO theology (to a great degree, “ecumenism” in EO theology is synonymous with “modernism” in Catholic theology).

(3) Consequently, many traditionalist EO regard the Ecumenical Patriarchate with a great deal of circumspection on account of its involvement with the ecumenical movement and its reapproachment with the Holy See, which many consider to be excessively liberal and progressive. I’ve lost count of how many times now that the EC’s name has been struck from (and then restored to) the diptychs of the Athonite monasteries. The new developments in Constantinopolitan ecclesiology (i.e. autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine) has really worsened these theological disagreements.

With all that in mind, I think that not an insignificant proportion of Catholics are hearing only what they want to hear: the EC and a select few metropolitans and bishops of the Church of Greece who do desire communion with Rome. At the same time, the majority of the Hellenic episcopate and nearly every other autocephalous Orthodox Church are either, at best, indifferent to the Holy See, or, at worst, consider communion with Rome to be the worst affront to Orthodoxy.

 

[Alexandria2020]

At the same time, the majority of the Hellenic episcopate and nearly every other autocephalous Orthodox Church are either, at best, indifferent to the Holy See, or, at worst, consider communion with Rome to be the worst affront to Orthodoxy.

correct. and there are traditionalist factions within EC churches that think the same way.

one of their fears is latinizations and the other is a lack of autocephaly.

if you look at my own Syro-Malabar Church (SMC), we were only given an all India jurisdiction very late - at 2017 by Rome. Prior to that - the Latin Church dominated throughout most of India. While the SMC was suppressed to it’s home state of Kerala. SMCs who left Kerala got latinized, and SMC priests who went outside served as Latin priests. Missionary SMC priests had to put on a Latin identity once they left Kerala.

Now the last thing you want to tell an Orthodox is this story of the SMC in India.

 

[StephenW]

Excellent insights.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

You got it.

This is exactly right.

 

[Alexandria2020]

If an Eastern patriarch or major archbishop became Pope, he would have to switch to the Latin Rite correct? As the Pope is the head of the Latin Church? In this Roman/Latin context, this shows the Latin rites are superior or the modus operandi rite of the Catholic Church.

How do you expect an Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East patriarch/bishops to submit to Rome?

 

[Ridgerunner]

With all that in mind, I think that not an insignificant proportion of Catholics are hearing only what they want to hear: the EC and a select few metropolitans and bishops of the Church of Greece who do desire communion with Rome. At the same time, the majority of the Hellenic episcopate and nearly every other autocephalous Orthodox Church are either, at best, indifferent to the Holy See, or, at worst, consider communion with Rome to be the worst affront to Orthodoxy.

I agree. It has been my experience in talking with EO to be informed that some of the Greek churchmen adherent to the Patriarch of Constantinople are at least not unfriendly toward the Latins. The adherents of the Moscow Patriarchate, are another matter entirely. There seems to be not the slightest interest on the part of that Patriarch (head of by far the largest Orthodox patriarchate) to be anything but hostile toward Latin Christianity.

If an Eastern patriarch or major archbishop became Pope, he would have to switch to the Latin Rite correct?

I don’t know if that’s true. I recall discussing that long ago in college theology. It wasn’t terribly definite then, and I doubt it is now. The consensus was, however, that there is no inconsistency in being an Eastern Catholic and the Pope, and so the Pope could follow both rites as he chose and would probably vary from time to time.

 

[dochawk]

If an Eastern patriarch or major archbishop became Pope, he would have to switch to the Latin Rite correct? As the Pope is the head of the Latin Church? In this Roman/Latin context, this shows the Latin rites are superior or the modus operandi rite of the Catholic Church.

No. Not in any way, shape, or form.

He would certainly be expected to celebrate the rite of his new see, yes.

This doesn’t even vaguely suggest any kind of superiority; it is simply the liturgical usage of the dioces of rome.

 

[Alexandria2020]

This doesn’t even vaguely suggest any kind of superiority; it is simply the liturgical usage of the dioces of rome.

exactly the pope is the head of the Latin church and so has to be a Latin patriarch as well.

 

[dochawk]

yes, but that doesn’t involve a “switch” for a bishop. Bishops can, and historically have, had a variety of rites in their dioceses.

and switch or not, there’s no suggestion of supremacy of rite, just the rite of that particular church

 

[Alexandria2020]

Bishops can, and historically have, had a variety of rites in their dioceses.

I see. Interesting.
Reminds me of the Archeparchy of Kottayam in the Syro-Malabar Church. Which employs the East Syriac and West Syriac rites within the archeparchy.

 

[dochawk]

the existence of the EC hierarchies in the US is a historical anomaly due to abuse by the RCC bishops.

There shouldn’t be such things; the bishop in a see is supposed to minister to his flock of whatever rites, see that they have clergy of their rite, and so forth.

Unfortunately, “minister” got replaced with “stamp out”.

The existence of ACROD and the OCA are direct consequences of such abuse, and both were proximately caused by direct abuse of EC clergy by behavior for which “pig headed” is a charitable description.

Rome first sent a couple of floating bishops, and eventually raised the EC eparchies to protect the faithful, not becfause it is normal ecclesiology.

 

[Alexandria2020]

the existence of the EC hierarchies in the US is a historical anomaly due to abuse by the RCC bishops.

that’s what happened in India as well. The SyroMalabarians were initially under a Latin diocese for like 200 years or so. but obviously due to abuse Pope Leo XIII created separate Syrian vicarities for the East Syriac Rite Catholics in the late 19th century. (compare that with the Indian Orthodox Church/Jacobite Orthodox Church- the factions that split off from us in 1653- they had Indian bishops during all this time).

People like Mar Joseph Kariattil were leaders/bishops who sacrificed their lives for the church. Mar Joseph Kariattil was consecrated Archbishop of Cranganore for the Syrians. He later died due to poisoning and had a successor ( Mar Thomas Paremmakkal). But after Mar Thomas’s tenure the Archdiocese of Cranganore was completely suppressed by the Latins and the Latin diocese took over. Basically they didn’t trust the native Indian population.

Interestingly the Latin dioceses had European bishops till the 20th century. Some as late as 1971 (Diocese of Vijayapuram). I guess it was due to the Tridentine Mass? As definitely it’s very Eurocentric.