Eastern Rite and Pope Benedict XIV

  • Thread starter Thread starter TantumErgo90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TantumErgo90

Guest
Could someone please help me understand what Pope Benedict XIV was saying in “Allatae Sunt” when he said
Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites.
Click to expand...
 
To answer the other thread. The Church of Rome (Holy Roman Church) is the Mother and Teacher of the other churches. This is not a question. It is doctrine and the statement “Mother and Mistress of Churches” even made itself into the Creed of the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent said
If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
The Bull “Quo Primum” says the the Church of Rome is the “Mother and Teacher of the other Churches”. My question pertains more to the question of why the Pope said the Roman Rite is preferred to the other rites.
 
TantumErgo90 said:
To answer the other thread. The Church of Rome (Holy Roman Church) is the Mother and Teacher of the other churches. This is not a question. It is doctrine and the statement “Mother and Mistress of Churches” even made itself into the Creed of the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent said The Bull “Quo Primum” says the the Church of Rome is the “Mother and Teacher of the other Churches”. My question pertains more to the question of why the Pope said the Roman Rite is preferred to the other rites.
Click to expand...
A troubling proposition, depending on what he means and in which context. The answer, I do not have.

God Bless,
R.
 
I am confused about such word “preferred”. Does this bishop of Rome prefer such Latin rites himself, or does he believe since worship is offered to God, that such Latin worship is preferred by God? If Bishop of Rome prefers latin, wonderful. But for him to speak for preferences of God and Our Lord Jesus Christ is exceedingly strange - since Latin rite is much younger than Greek. So was Almighty God displeased for almost 200 years when only Christian worship given to him was in unfortunate Greek language and rite??
 
Volodymyr said:
I am confused about such word “preferred”. Does this bishop of Rome prefer such Latin rites himself, or does he believe since worship is offered to God, that such Latin worship is preferred by God? If Bishop of Rome prefers latin, wonderful. But for him to speak for preferences of God and Our Lord Jesus Christ is exceedingly strange - since Latin rite is much younger than Greek. So was Almighty God displeased for almost 200 years when only Christian worship given to him was in unfortunate Greek language and rite??
Click to expand...
The statement was made in the context of Latin Catholics living in predominantly Eastern places transferring rites (perhaps to take advantage of the possibility of marrying before ordination) and the Pope wanted to stop the abuse.

But I dare to say he was wrong in saying the Latin Rite is to be preferred. The Latin rite should be preferred for Latin Catholics, and Eastern Catholics should prefer their own Eastern rites.

All liturgy and rite is equally pleasing to God and there should never be any Latin Rite vs. Eastern Rite debate ever, not even from a Pope.
 
I suspect the wording may be internal to the Roman Rite, since the term Particular Churches applies to every diocese as in individual canonical person.

Within the Roman Church Sui Iuris, Rome is the Mother and Teacher of all other Roman Rite Particular Churches (dioceses, and other prelatures of equivalent authority).

HH Benedict XVI has made it clear in the past he supports the “Two Lungs” mode that HH John Paul II supported.

HH Benedict has also made it abundantly clear that, within the Roman Church, latin isn’t just for pride of place, but the right, noble, proper order of things. (It appears the Synod doesn’t entirely agree, but the Roman Synod seldom meets as one.)
 
Aramis said:
I suspect the wording may be internal to the Roman Rite, since the term Particular Churches applies to every diocese as in individual canonical person.

Within the Roman Church Sui Iuris, Rome is the Mother and Teacher of all other Roman Rite Particular Churches (dioceses, and other prelatures of equivalent authority).

**HH Benedict XVI **has made it clear in the past he supports the “Two Lungs” mode that HH John Paul II supported.

HH Benedict has also made it abundantly clear that, within the Roman Church, latin isn’t just for pride of place, but the right, noble, proper order of things. (It appears the Synod doesn’t entirely agree, but the Roman Synod seldom meets as one.)
Click to expand...
The encyclical is by Benedict XIV
 
In which case, it’s almost absolutely Latin Church centered.😊

Sorry, my dyslexia makes roman numerals really problematic.🤷
 
Aramis said:
In which case, it’s almost absolutely Latin Church centered.😊

Sorry, my dyslexia makes roman numerals really problematic.🤷
Click to expand...
Don’t worry, I had the same reaction. 😛

I was trying to figure out just what context this quote was being ripped out of, since it didn’t fit anything I’ve ever heard Pope Benedict XVI even hint at. :hypno:

Peace and God bless!
 
Within the Roman Church Sui Iuris, Rome is the Mother and Teacher of all other Roman Rite Particular Churches (dioceses, and other prelatures of equivalent authority).
Click to expand...
The Diocese (Church) of Rome is the Mother and Teacher of all Churches, regardless of Western or Eastern. This is because only the Pope, Bishop of Rome, can say if something is true or not. This does not mean, however, that the Eastern Churches cannot be beneficial or help deepen the understanding of doctrines of the Catholic Church.
 
This is just another case were one must read the acutal statements in context. This context is not just reading the quote within the document but also who it is addressed to.

When the Holy Father speaks he is not always speaking to the whole Church. There are many times when he speaks as the patriarch of the west (Head of the Latin Catholic Church) [such as when he promotes the celibate priesthood and, I believe in this case as pointed out by porthos11] or as Bishop of Rome [when he speaks on the issue of communion in hand and female altar servers].

Unless it is stated that the audience is all of the Faithful or that it is binding upon all, then it is presumptuious to think that it is such.
 
Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites.

**No one seems to be dealing with this quote honestly.

It clearly means that the Latin liturgical rite was considered the ideal one, and the more others conform to it, the more “perfect” they are. This is why, for example, the Synod of Zamosc abolished the zeon, the Maronites forbade Communion in both kinds to the laity (their original custom), infants were denied communion, and clerical celibacy was imposed in certain Eastern Catholic Churches.

Traces of this same arrogance appear in these fora from time to time.

Fortunately, this statment by Benedict XIV was NOT an ex-cathedra statement.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites.

No one seems to be dealing with this quote honestly.

It clearly means that the Latin liturgical rite was considered the ideal one, and the more others conform to it, the more “perfect” they are. This is why, for example, the Synod of Zamosc abolished the zeon, the Maronites forbade Communion in both kinds to the laity (their original custom), infants were denied communion, and clerical celibacy was imposed in certain Eastern Catholic Churches.

Traces of this same arrogance appear in these fora from time to time.

Fortunately, this statment by Benedict XIV was NOT an ex-cathedra statement.
Click to expand...
Again, context is everything. We are dealing with it honestly.

I would say that those who pull this quote out of context. Both the context of the document and to whom it was addressed are the ones not being honest.

Just another way to start a fight and point out the supossed distain for the Eastern Churches.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites.

No one seems to be dealing with this quote honestly.

It clearly means that the Latin liturgical rite was considered the ideal one, and the more others conform to it, the more “perfect” they are. This is why, for example, the Synod of Zamosc abolished the zeon, the Maronites forbade Communion in both kinds to the laity (their original custom), infants were denied communion, and clerical celibacy was imposed in certain Eastern Catholic Churches.

Traces of this same arrogance appear in these fora from time to time.

Fortunately, this statment by Benedict XIV was NOT an ex-cathedra statement.
Click to expand...
Correct.

This is the once vaunted “Praestantia Ritus Latini” which was the formal standard operating procedure of the church for many decades.

It had the unfortunate effect of making many Eastern Catholics (priests and bishops as well a laity) feel second class in the church, accelerating the adoption of Latinizing practices.

It bred the Elko mindset.

I am glad you mentioned Zamosc, an all but repudiated memory now, nearly forgotten. It is (as I understand it) no longer binding.
  1. In places where the observance of the liturgical prescriptions of the Synod of Zamost’ have been introduced in recent times by way of custom,(358) the Sacred Congregation permits the Bishops and Ordinaries to dispense, prudently, from the observance of these prescriptions of the Synod of Zamost’.
    Circular to the Ruthenian Ordinaries
    Cardinal Tisserant 1941
Click to expand...
 
ByzCath said:
This is just another case were one must read the acutal statements in context. This context is not just reading the quote within the document but also who it is addressed to.

When the Holy Father speaks he is not always speaking to the whole Church. There are many times when he speaks as the patriarch of the west (Head of the Latin Catholic Church) [such as when he promotes the celibate priesthood and, I believe in this case as pointed out by porthos11] or as Bishop of Rome [when he speaks on the issue of communion in hand and female altar servers].

Unless it is stated that the audience is all of the Faithful or that it is binding upon all, then it is presumptuious to think that it is such.
Click to expand...
Did they tell Archbishop Ireland that?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Did they tell Archbishop Ireland that?
Click to expand...
And what does this have to do with Archbishop Ireland?

Here is another issue we have.

Keep bringing up the past.

Is it no wonder why I have been absent from this forum for so long?
 
TantumErgo90 said:
The Diocese (Church) of Rome is the Mother and Teacher of all Churches, regardless of Western or Eastern. This is because only the Pope, Bishop of Rome, can say if something is true or not. This does not mean, however, that the Eastern Churches cannot be beneficial or help deepen the understanding of doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Regarding the Papacy, it is a profound blessing from God. Unfortunately, WE Catholics sometimes present it in the worst light possible. Allow me to give you an example:

A year or so ago I was eating dinner with a fellow Catholic. We were discussing matters of religion, and an Asian gentleman heard the conversation. He politely introduced himself, and wanted to learn what Catholicism was. He was a recent immigrant from Asia, and was nominally Buddhist. He asked us what Catholics believe. Before I had a chance, my friend answered:

“We believe in the Pope! Everyone must obey him in order to be saved.”

This line of conversation went on for several minutes, with my friend emphasizing the necessity of “submission to Rome.” There was no mention of Jesus or the Gospel message. This Asian man was noticeably disturbed, and quickly excused himself before I could get more than a word in. That was a lost opportunity.
  • Anthony Dragani
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top