How can we "Delatinize" parishes?

[5Loaves]

That’s about right, though I’m not altogether sure what the “veneration of Cross” you mentioned is. Do you happen to have a link?

In the Latin Church I go to there is a “formal” veneration on Good Friday. It’s supposed to be that the people venerate a crucifix but in this parish it’s a bare cross, about 5 feet tall. A couple of people hold the cross and people line up to come and kiss the cross. I believe there is supposed to be a corpus on the cross for venerations like this in the Latin Church unless a relic of the True Cross is what is being venerated. With a crucifix the people kiss Christ’s feet. In a more traditional parish I’m sure there are traditional hymn which would be sung during this. They sing “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord” at my parish…

I’m also involved in a Taize worship service once a month. During the service an icon cross which is one the order of the San Damiano Cross and about 4 feet high is laid out on the steps and people come up at a certain time during the prayers and kneel touch, kiss, put their forehead on the cross.

Well … it’s more than “something like” it. It’s the same thing, ostensorium, humeral veil, and all, given a little twist here and there.

 

[malphono]

Not to butt in too much or answer for Malphono, but since the position of Syriac relative to the various communities in Lebanon is something I have spent a little bit of time studying, I can say that it’s rather bleak for the Maronites in particular. Ray Mouawad’s article from “Hugoye”, while being 11 years old by now, seems to be a fairly accurate assessment of the situation, and I would be incredibly surprised to find that it has gotten any better since 2000. I say this as a non-Syriac Christian with no sectarian issues regarding any of the communities involved, but I really agree with Mouawad’s point in the article when he writes:

Yes, Ray Mouawad’s article is good and, yes, it’s indeed still accurate.

This is one of the many, many, many reasons I am always blathering on about the importance of Syriac, despite not being of that persuasion myself. Anyway, he also stresses that in terms of the attitude of the people (separate from their access/knowledge) Syriac seems to be seen as increasingly important, so perhaps things will eventually get a little better.

Very possible. One can only hope.

I am subscribed to the electronic bulletins of the “Friends of the Syriac Language” association in Beirut (mentioned in the article) and it does seem like they’ve always got something going on or planned, though I couldn’t tell you how popular their various programs are.

Although I can’t put my hand on a link right at the moment, I’ve come to learn that there’s a sort of “branch” among the Maronites in Israel too. It’s not sponsored by the Maronite diocese, but it has been active, and from what I’ve heard, has met with a certain amount of success there as well.

 

[mardukm]

I suppose it may be a bit different for Churches which have significant Eastern counterparts because restorations mean shared practices and also a visible guarantee against future Latinization.

But looking back at the debates in the Syro-Malabar Church (the Assyrian Church in India is not exactly a counterpart), I’m not sure whether de-Latinzation is any more “authentic”, in a certain sense. Now on one hand, there’s no doubt that some of the bishops are thoroughly Latinized and trained in the Latin ways of doing things. And some Latinizations (abbreviations, facing the people) do not have any great benefit.

On the other hand, for things that have popular appeal especially in the devotional sense, for e.g. given the large fighting that broke out when they floated stopping the elevations, and introduced the strange Eastern “Benediction-but-not-benediction” — those I do not see any benefit in. They are authentic devotions that have nourished people’s spirituality. It seems rather high handed to waltz in and tell people that they’ve got it wrong. And evidently people feel that way, because when it’s stopped in the Syro-Malabar, they go to the Latins. In fact, I think some introductions are actually beneficial…for example, the introduction of paintings of the saints into churches which is not the practice of the Assyrian Church.

I do see the benefit in restoring traditions of each Church where they were abolished alongside the popular devotions. But I’m not sure of the approach that seeks some kind of “purity” in a rite. For example, the Armenians borrowed many things from Latins and many things from the Byzantine church. What is the “Armenian tradition”? And this back and forth borrowing among liturgies was quite common in the early centuries. So perhaps a litmus test is to see how entrenched they have become in the popular consciousness instead to seeking some purity. Otherwise de-Latinization becomes as high handed as Latinization was.

I believe that is a very fair assessment. I also like brothers dvdjs, Phillip Rolfes and Alexander Roman’s POV about organic development, and the need for sensitivity. For example, as far as spirituality is concerned, its main purpose is to bring people closer to Christ. People of different Traditions obviously have found much spiritual value from the Traditions of other Churches, and incorporated it into their lives, both privately and publicly, because it helps them in their road to holiness. To rip that away from people just for the sake of “Traditional purity” smacks of legalism to me. Whatever it is Easterns and Orientals have to do to de-Latinize, the high horse approach of “what you are doing cannot be allowed here, no exceptions made” is not the way to go (IMO).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

AJV;7892407:

I do see the benefit in restoring traditions of each Church where they were abolished alongside the popular devotions. But I’m not sure of the approach that seeks some kind of “purity” in a rite. For example, the Armenians borrowed many things from Latins and many things from the Byzantine church. What is the “Armenian tradition”? And this back and forth borrowing among liturgies was quite common in the early centuries. So perhaps a litmus test is to see how entrenched they have become in the popular consciousness instead to seeking some purity. Otherwise de-Latinization becomes as high handed as Latinization was.

I believe that is a very fair assessment. …

Yes, I think so too. That idea expands nicely on something I mentioned in an earlier [post=7890301]post[/post] in this thread:

… I’m obviously not against reform (as in removing at least the more egregious latinizations, but I am 100+% opposed to “reform” in the Novus Ordo sense), but one does have to be careful in attempting to remove things that have become tradition over nearly 500 years.

 

[malphono]

In the Latin Church I go to there is a “formal” veneration on Good Friday.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I know the rite of the Adoration of the Cross in the Latin Church, but only in the Usus Antiquior. (I just don’t do Novus Ordo anything.)

Anyway, no, the “Benediction of the Cross” is not that. What it really is is a combination of both traditional Syriac and Latin influences, which is why I call it a “hybrid” service. It’s somewhat unique: the Cross is incensed while a Syriac-style metrical hymn is sung, then there are several Latin-style prayers (with Paters and Aves), followed by a second incensation of the Cross with a Syriac incense hymn (borrowed from Good Friday), followed by another Syriac-style metrical hymn, followed by the blessing with the Cross, and ending with a non-metrical hymn in the Sicilian style. The service is normally done on Friday evenings in Lent, in place of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (which is not normally done during Lent).

 

[malphono]

Just replace every O sound with an A sound (except for when the letter ‘waw’ is actually written) and you will be understood just fine

Yeah, I know the “vowel replacement” theory and it generally works, but … (see below)

Then again I tried to follow a Syriac Orthodox DL and can only understand a quarter of the words spoken

Yep … I know the feeling. I’ve listened to enough Juliana Jendo and Janan Sawa to know that it’s easier said than done.

Not that I know any Maronite clergy, but I assumed that they had to study Syriac in seminaries to understand the Maronite liturgy.

In Lebanon, they do (albeit that they rarely (if ever) actually do anything in Syriac, but I digress). In the US, however, it’s a totally different story. For 30+ years of the post-conciliar era, there was essentially nothing. But … hope springs eternal: within the last 7 or so years at least some effort has been made.

I watch Noursat and see choirs singing long hymns in Syriac, I just can’t help but wonder if the language isn’t completely dead outside of church. ^ Otherwise people are just blindly saying words they can vaguely understand.

I wonder if any Maronite efforts are being done to promote the Syriac language here in the U.S., or in Lebanon…

Our friend dzheremi said it quite well.

 

[malphono]

I watch Noursat …

Did you catch today’s installment? More Melkites using the table. Twice in the same week: is this some sort of new trend? This time it was a bishop, which makes it even worse. It was also outdoors and of course there wasn’t even a hint of a portable inconostasis.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

Did you catch today’s installment? More Melkites using the table. Twice in the same week: is this some sort of new trend? This time it was a bishop, which makes it even worse. It was also outdoors and of course there wasn’t even a hint of a portable inconostasis.

O my goodness, twice in the same week, I am watching it right now (break from HP on ABCF). They’re using an electric organ too, and it has drum and accordion tones. (insert expletive here) The music isn’t even in a Byzantine tone. Filioque was said. A non-traditional hymn is being sung now. I would never be able to worship Christ with all these distractions. I wonder if angrily yelling at a bishop to defend Orthodoxy is rude. I wish all Latinization defenders could watch this and see that it does not benefit anybody at all. Shame on that bishop in Zahle.

I need to completely disagree with people (not you malphono) who say that Latin practices and devotions publicly celebrated in Eastern Churches help the spirituality of the congregation members. It just disgusts me when the Orthodox traditions of the church are abandoned for the sake of the Latinizations that were dear to your grandparents. The term Orthodox in communion with Rome should apply for all Byzantine and Oriental Catholic Churches. We should be completely Orthodox and be identical or more authentic than our counterparts that we separated from. The Chaldean and Syro-Malabar Church both come from the Assyrian Church of the East, what authentic reason is there that we cannot look at them and practice identically?

There have been posts on this thread saying Eastern-rite Catholics shouldn’t try to become more Orthodox than the actual Orthodox, but my question is WHY NOT? There are many Orthodox parishes that are barely practicing their traditions properly. Some Eastern Orthodox parishes choose not to have the Akathist or Great Compline services in Lent, and replace them with Presanctified Liturgy. Some Coptic Orthodox parishes use organs, Latin iconography and statues instead of Coptic icons. Why shouldn’t we practice the traditions of our church authentically and enthusiastically to benefit the health of our cultures and spirituality?

I would not expect to attend a Latin-rite parish and attend a Parakesis or Ramsho, so what justification is there in the argument that Latin devotions have a place in the Eastern Catholic churches? I do not think that the process of de-Latinizing parishes should be abrupt, but some really simple actions could be immediately done without any shock to the faithful. The ideas on this thread about educating the youth about the true traditions of your particular church, and bringing back the Orthodox practices alongside the current Latin ones are good and beneficial in the transition for the churches, assuming the traditions that don’t belong to the rite of that church are eventually removed.

That’s enough of my ranting.

I do understand and agree that some things have literally become a part of the Maronite and Chaldean churches after 500+ years, and I see that we recognize that these practices are hard to remove, due to there not being much of a counterpart or alternative to these services. We have discussed what can be done and replaced for the Chaldean and Maronite Churches, and there is still much work to do to remove Latinizations that are from the past few centuries.

However, there is no excuse for Oriental and Byzantine Catholics to have a single Latinization. (See rant above)

 

[ciero]

o my goodness, twice in the same week, i am watching it right now (break from hp on abcf). They’re using an electric organ too, and it has drum and accordion tones. (insert expletive here) the music isn’t even in a byzantine tone. Filioque was said. A non-traditional hymn is being sung now. I would never be able to worship christ with all these distractions. I wonder if angrily yelling at a bishop to defend orthodoxy is rude. I wish all latinization defenders could watch this and see that it does not benefit anybody at all. Shame on that bishop in zahle.

I need to completely disagree with people (not you malphono) who say that latin practices and devotions publicly celebrated in eastern churches help the spirituality of the congregation members. It just disgusts me when the orthodox traditions of the church are abandoned for the sake of the latinizations that were dear to your grandparents. The term orthodox in communion with rome should apply for all byzantine and oriental catholic churches. We should be completely orthodox and be identical or more authentic than our counterparts that we separated from. The chaldean and syro-malabar church both come from the assyrian church of the east, what authentic reason is there that we cannot look at them and practice identically?

There have been posts on this thread saying eastern-rite catholics shouldn’t try to become more orthodox than the actual orthodox, but my question is why not? There are many orthodox parishes that are barely practicing their traditions properly. Some eastern orthodox parishes choose not to have the akathist or great compline services in lent, and replace them with presanctified liturgy. Some coptic orthodox parishes use organs, latin iconography and statues instead of coptic icons. Why shouldn’t we practice the traditions of our church authentically and enthusiastically to benefit the health of our cultures and spirituality?

I would not expect to attend a latin-rite parish and attend a parakesis or ramsho, so what justification is there in the argument that latin devotions have a place in the eastern catholic churches? I do not think that the process of de-latinizing parishes should be abrupt, but some really simple actions could be immediately done without any shock to the faithful. The ideas on this thread about educating the youth about the true traditions of your particular church, and bringing back the orthodox practices alongside the current latin ones are good and beneficial in the transition for the churches, assuming the traditions that don’t belong to the rite of that church are eventually removed.

That’s enough of my ranting.

I do understand and agree that some things have literally become a part of the maronite and chaldean churches after 500+ years, and i see that we both recognize that these traditions are hard to remove, due to there not being much of a counterpart or alternative to these services. We have discussed what can be done and replaced for the chaldean and maronite churches, and there is still much work to do to remove latinizations that are from the past few centuries.

However, there is no excuse for oriental and byzantine catholics to have a single latinization. (see rant above)

Fantastic post!!!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would not expect to attend a Latin-rite parish and attend a Parakesis or Ramsho, so what justification is there in the argument that Latin devotions have a place in the Eastern Catholic churches? I do not think that the process of de-Latinizing parishes should be abrupt, but some really simple actions could be immediately done without any shock to the faithful. The ideas on this thread about educating the youth about the true traditions of your particular church, and bringing back the Orthodox practices alongside the current Latin ones are good and beneficial in the transition for the churches, assuming the traditions that don’t belong to the rite of that church are eventually removed.

There are many issues that just simply restoring the traditional practices. As I’ve mentioned in the past in many other threads, many people who grew up with these Latinizations hold on to these as their traditions. And with thin congregations, what can the Bishop and/or Priest do? Chase away what few people they have?

 

[dzheremi]

There are many issues that just simply restoring the traditional practices. As I’ve mentioned in the past in many other threads, many people who grew up with these Latinizations hold on to these as their traditions. And with thin congregations, what can the Bishop and/or Priest do? Chase away what few people they have?

It’s not enough to have liturgies versus populum, you now have to have arguments ad populum, too? Yikes. Is it rash to suggest that you might gain more people than you’d lose with a properly-celebrated, staunchly traditional liturgy? Or did the congregations you’re referring to simply become thin due to a natural decline in the size of the community overall?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s not enough to have liturgies versus populum, you now have to have arguments ad populum, too? Yikes. Is it rash to suggest that you might gain more people than you’d lose with a properly-celebrated, staunchly traditional liturgy? Or did the congregations you’re referring to simply become thin due to a natural decline in the size of the community overall?

First is that Eastern Catholic parishes in North America are already competing with Roman Catholic parishes for their own congregation. With a wider availability of Mass at different times of the day including afternoons and evenings as well as the “anticipated” Mass on Saturdays. Plus its the RC dioceses that are well funded and can afford to put up schools, so parents who want Catholic education for their children end up sending them to Roman Catholic Schools instead of those that follow the Byzantine Rite (regardless of sui juris). Kids grow up Roman Catholic, get taught Roman Catholic doctrine, go to Mass during school days, then all their friends are also Roman Catholic. So now you have comparison of Liturgy and people blow things off that do not resemble a Mass. Vespers on a Saturday evening? If they would go on a Saturday evening instead of Sunday, they’d be looking for Communion. Sure, you don’t need to receive Communion every Sunday for your “Sunday obligation” but tell that to the people who see it as part of it. So instead of going to Vespers, they go to the “anticipated” Mass 5 blocks down the road. So what do Eastern parishes do? Vesperal Divine Liturgy every Saturday evening.

Why stand throughout Liturgy when you can be sitting a good amount of time in an RC parish?

There are many reasons why the congregation of the Eastern parishes here in North America thin out. And most of those who remain prefer the status quo. So what do you do if you were the bishop or priest of the parish? Delatinizing may drive out some or most of your regular parishioners. And being more faithful to tradition is not a guarantee that other people will come back. To most people, being Catholic is attending a Sunday Liturgy, doesn’t matter the form or tradition. Thats the reality we face.

 

[ronyodish]

Brethren,

I’m resurrecting an old thread, sorry, just trying to catch up with some old threads that I find interesting!

The Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches are called to restore their authentic patrimonies, in an organic manner, in order to manifest more clearly the Catholicity and Diversity of the Church.

Often times, the issue of Latinization comes up as an obstacle to that restoration. However, this fixation with Latinization is best viewed from a Byzantine church’s perspective, because to the Byzantines, it is the only obstacle to the restoration of their patrimony. To the Byzantines, they need not worry about the izations of other traditions.

This is not the case with non-Byzantines. For example, for us Assyro-Chaldeans, the ization that we need to overcome is more than just Latinization, it is the whole Westernization that is an obstacle, and by Westernization, from the traditional perspective of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, we mean every tradition that is West of us. I’m referring not just to the Latin West, but to the Byzantine West, the Western Syriac, and all the other beautiful traditions that flourished in the ancient Roman Empire that we Assyro-Chaldeans consider to be the West.

Guys don’t misunderstand me, this is not a jab on every other tradition… I’m simply saying that if we are to be true to ourselves as Christians of the Church of the East, Christians of the Assyro-Chaldaic tradition, then we need to overcome the foreignizations placed upon our authentic tradition, from whatever Western tradition it came. We are not called to replace one ization (Latinization) with another ization (Byzantinization, etc.).

For a simple example: We Assyro-Chaldeans are not called to replace Latin statues with Byzantine icons, because even though we would be de-Latinizing in that example, we are by no means becoming more authentically Eastern. In such an example, we would simply be exchanging one Westernization with another.

Another example: We are not called to replace the Dominican Holy Rosary with the Akathist to the Mother of God… because even though both are beautiful traditions that come from the West (one by the Latins, the other by the Greeks), they are still an ization foreign to the tradition of the Assyro-Chaldeans.

So, from my perspective as an Assyro-Chaldean, I would ask all my fellow Christians of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syro-Malabar tradition, how can we as Eastern Christians deWesternize our parishes? How can we restore them to their original Eastern complexion and identity?

I believe the answer will come when the Chaldean Church of the East and the Syro-Malabar Church of the East, without loosing full communion with Rome and the Holy Catholic Church, reunite with their brethren in the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East. Only then, will our traditions be fully restored. We will fully Catholicize (universalize) these Assyrian/Ancient Churches, and they will fully Easternize our Chaldean/Malabarese Churches.

Just my opinion.

God bless,

Rony

 

[malphono]

For example, for us Assyro-Chaldeans, the ization that we need to overcome is more than just Latinization, it is the whole Westernization that is an obstacle, and by Westernization, from the traditional perspective of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, we mean every tradition that is West of us. I’m referring not just to the Latin West, but to the Byzantine West, the Western Syriac, and all the other beautiful traditions that flourished in the ancient Roman Empire that we Assyro-Chaldeans consider to be the West.

'azizi Rony

I will only remark here that any “ization” from the West Syriac Churches is anecdotal at best. Albeit that things branched off, we come from the same origin, i.e, Edessa, so of course there is a certain amount of “overlap” but not in the form of an “ization”. Such an “ization” would have to work both ways, and I cannot say that it does, beyond what the East and West Syriacs share in common.

For the rest, I essentially agree: the idea of replacing latinizations with byzantinizations is repugnant to me. One is as bad as the other. What’s worse than both, though, is the poisoned mindset which invites one or the other. We don’t need either: we have our own patrimony.

 

[5Loaves]

This blog entry today might interest folks reading this thread. I don’t want to start a new thread, tho someone else might, just to post it.

A Ukrainian Greek Catholic Priest in the UK politely comments on things he does and does not like. For the most part.
May 12, 2013 Symposium
True to Tradition

Final paragraph.

The Eastern Churches need to be faithful to their inheritance, as the Latin Church needs to be faithful to hers. There is scope on the part of both East and West to take account of the other, but this does not and should not entail any syncretism or confusion. Let the rosary be prayed, but let it be done by those whose vocation it is. Meanwhile, let those of us of the East boldly manifest the beauty and mystery that is genuinely ours, and so be true to our vocation.

Read the whole entry.

 

[theistgal]

This blog entry today might interest folks reading this thread. I don’t want to start a new thread, tho someone else might, just to post it.

A Ukrainian Greek Catholic Priest in the UK politely comments on things he does and does not like. For the most part.
May 12, 2013 Symposium
True to Tradition

Final paragraph.

Read the whole entry.

Excellent! I do think that an awful lot of Latin-Rite Catholics need to read this message, even more so than the Byzantines. Especially those who start threads in the EC forum to the tune of “why don’t you Byzantine Catholics pray the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet like real Catholics?” every couple of days.

I especially like this paragraph, and I’m going to quote it in its entirety for those who don’t feel like going to all the trouble of clicking on the link:

If a Latin Catholic wanted to use the Jesus Prayer, a chotki, and icons on a personal basis, it could well be for the benefit of his or her spiritual life. Likewise a Greek who found the rosary helpful. But if those same individuals became increasingly immersed in their appropriated practices, it would only make sense for them to begin worshipping within a community that prayed likewise. If, instead, they were to suggest that their personal devotions should become publicly-celebrated features of their native communities, this would be true neither to those communities nor the devotions. It would be tantamount to bringing a hockey puck to a football match. The is nothing wrong with either hockey or football, of course, and if a boy wants to practice the one as a player of the other, then it is his prerogative to do so. Likewise if he wants to change sports altogether. On the other hand, if that same boy wants to import the equipment or the rules of one sport to the other, then he won’t end up playing either.

 

[jwinch2]

We don’t need either: we have our own patrimony.

Interesting, and compelling, point. I have only very recently begun to understand the concept of patrimony as it relates to the Church. Sadly, we have lost it in the west perhaps as much or more than in the east. I pray for the day when an emphasis and reclaiming our patrimony returns to all parts of the Church.

 

[jwinch2]

Interesting article, thanks for sharing it.

The Eastern Churches need to be faithful to their inheritance, as the Latin Church needs to be faithful to hers.

I could not agree more with this statement.

 

[MorEphrem]

First is that Eastern Catholic parishes in North America are already competing with Roman Catholic parishes for their own congregation. With a wider availability of Mass at different times of the day including afternoons and evenings as well as the “anticipated” Mass on Saturdays. Plus its the RC dioceses that are well funded and can afford to put up schools, so parents who want Catholic education for their children end up sending them to Roman Catholic Schools instead of those that follow the Byzantine Rite (regardless of sui juris). Kids grow up Roman Catholic, get taught Roman Catholic doctrine, go to Mass during school days, then all their friends are also Roman Catholic. So now you have comparison of Liturgy and people blow things off that do not resemble a Mass. Vespers on a Saturday evening? If they would go on a Saturday evening instead of Sunday, they’d be looking for Communion. Sure, you don’t need to receive Communion every Sunday for your “Sunday obligation” but tell that to the people who see it as part of it. So instead of going to Vespers, they go to the “anticipated” Mass 5 blocks down the road. So what do Eastern parishes do? Vesperal Divine Liturgy every Saturday evening.

Why stand throughout Liturgy when you can be sitting a good amount of time in an RC parish?

There are many reasons why the congregation of the Eastern parishes here in North America thin out. And most of those who remain prefer the status quo. So what do you do if you were the bishop or priest of the parish? Delatinizing may drive out some or most of your regular parishioners. And being more faithful to tradition is not a guarantee that other people will come back. To most people, being Catholic is attending a Sunday Liturgy, doesn’t matter the form or tradition. Thats the reality we face.

Honestly it seems like you’re speaking in a purely speculative manner. Not to try to pass anecdote as evidence but there is a huge Melkite parish by me, very well attended, very traditional and it attracts many non-Melkites of non-Middle Eastern descent. Why? I can probably even name 5 RC churches in a mile radius from it. The pure beauty in how they perform the liturgy properly is more attractive than simply trying to accommodate but butchering things.

Additionally, I have friends who were ignorant of the Syriac tradition, but simply telling them what is proper to the tradition and what is not they had become interested in restoring our heritage. True, if one is 60yrs old, Latin devotions might’ve become too habitual but if you educate 20 yr olds and below they’ll probably be interested in restoring tradition (if they’re interested in coming to church). And if you lose people because they’d like to be lethargic and sit most of the liturgy or they want Saturday liturgy, oh well; they truly didn’t have proper love for the tradition and there are plenty of other Americans, if given the chance, that would embrace it. I have many friends in college who take interest in Byzantine liturgy (coming from protestant backgrounds) simply because of the solemnity of the liturgy, and would rather stand than sit, and have a standardized liturgy rather than a plethora of options.

From personal experience, I find it a very weak argument to say EC must accommodate people’s RC expectations. I don’t know where you live, but the RC ain’t doing so hot in NY/Northern NJ; Latins who haven’t even gone to church in years are much more willing to go with me to a Russian Catholic vesperal service or Maronite qurbono than with me to daily mass at NYU’s RC chapel.

 

[Prie_dieu]

Actually, without the Christian East, especially Jerusalem, the Roman Church would not be in existence.

False. Christ chose Saint Peter as the Prince of the Apostles, His Vicar on Earth, and highest visible authority on earth, before the establishment of a Christian East. And it was God that directed Saint Peter to Rome. Rome would exist with or without the Christian East.

In fact the Christian East could literally disappear tomorrow and the Church would still exist. The same goes for every single Church in the world… except for the Church of Rome. The Diocese of Rome is the unique and premier diocese in the Church. All others, in the end, are nothing compared to Rome. Rome is eternal. She can never, ever fall. Every Church throughout the world owes it to Rome for the Church to even exist.

If you are referring to the EC Churches, the Roman Church’s motherly “embrace” has been something of a Latin bear-hug, so much so, that the same Roman Church is now telling us to return to our Eastern traditions.

By all means return to the traditions of the East if that is what you and your fellow parishoners wish. Personally I wouldn’t want to turn around and tell Mary that you dumped her rosary because your great-great-great-grandfather in the old country didn’t say it and that it’s Latin so it doesn’t really belong there… then again, I don’t really recall Our Lady ever saying that the rosary was only intended for the Latin West.

I think this delatinisation stuff is somewhat nonsensical. Where does it end? Should I turn my back on French devotions because I’m an Irishman? Should Greek Catholics shun anything that even smells of Russia?

And the title “Pope” was first born by the Patriarch of Alexandria when the then Primate of Rome was only being called “Bishop.”

Bishop is all that matters. Because as bishop, he is the Successor of Saint Peter. No other title under heaven can be as glorious as that, no other title under heaven carries as much authority as that. Bishops and emperors bow to Peter. Whether he is addressed as Pope, Bishop of Jimbob.