How can we "Delatinize" parishes?

[malphono]

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.

Alex hasn’t posted in this forum for more than a year. He was, however correct in what he said in the quoted post from 2 years ago.

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.

Maybe it’s just me, but personally, I find this **highly **offensive.

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?

Again, maybe it’s just me, but I find this even more offensive. Perhaps I should refer you to a thread in the TC forum [thread=786682]Infant Communion a WESTERN Tradition[/thread].

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.

See the first item.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

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?

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.

Orientalium Dignitas. Pope Leo XIII:

The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: there flowered in first blush the glories of preaching the True Faith to the nations, of martyrdom, and of holiness. They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world, no matter how far-flung. When blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, intended to cast down the manifold wickedness of error and vice, in accord with the will of Heaven, he brought the light of divine Truth, the Gospel of peace, freedom in Christ to the metropolis of the Gentiles.

Eastern Catholics have a tradition which is every bit as august and important as we in the Latin Church do. Yes, the Bishop of Rome has the place of honor and authority for the universal Church. To that end, Eastern Catholics are following the call of the Holy Father in returning to the traditions which are germane to them. Are they supposed to be disobedient to the Pope and ignore his directives?

Furthermore, accusing them of somehow offending Our Lady because they do not say the Rosary is inappropriate, and flat out wrong. First of all, no Catholic is required to accept private revelation. Secondly, the Church does not in anyway regulate or mandate a particular private devotion, including the Rosary. I have never met an Eastern Catholic who does not have a strong devotion to the Mother of our Blessed Lord, they simply express it differently. The fact that they do so is not wrong or somehow offensive to Our Lady. Devotion to Mary does not equal recitation of the Rosary for any Catholic, Eastern or otherwise.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=220424

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters have, in far too many cases, had their patrimony stolen right out from under them. We in the Latin Church, who have all too often experienced the same thing, should be celebrating their return to tradition and supportive of their efforts.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/orientchurch/Istruzione/pdf/istruzione_inglese.pdf

 

[theistgal]

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.

Well, I wouldn’t want to turn around and tell Mary that I tried to guilt some Eastern Catholics into not only praying the Rosary but neglecting the traditions that the Church founded by her Son had told them to reclaim. But that’s just me.

 

[MorEphrem]

Well, Prie dieu, if you think delatinization is so nonsensical, I guess the unique authority of the Pope you subscribe to is somehow subject to your unique authority since basically every pope since Paul VI has told the Eastern Catholics to return to their proper patrimony. Honestly, the manner in which you speak is the ignorance that is the bane of our church, saturated in your own vain pride, which is in direct contradiction to what the popes themselves have taught.

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

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?

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.

This post is filled with some of the most arrogant, triumphalist garbage I’ve ever read.

 

[Peter_J]

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

Well, I don’t think anyone’s trying to deny that Rome would exist with or without the Christian East.

Question is: God directed St. Peter to go to Rome from where? :ehh:

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Well said. I hate to say, but I think even Latins telling ECs to be true to our traditions can sometimes be a bit of a back-handed compliment, you know? Kind of like they’re saying “It’s fine for us to ignore our traditions, but you should know better because you’re Eastern.” (Let me stress that I said sometimes not always.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

No, I am not speculating. For sure I cannot speak for every EC parish out there, but I speak from my own experience. I was EC for a little over 2 years before I decided to become Orthodox. So I know the issues. I know there are parishes out there who are better at this issue than others. Forgive me if my statement seems to blanket all.

I’ve tried to get people interested in my area in the EC tradition. No one cared. I’m glad in your area people do get interested. But not every area is the same, its better in some places, its worse in others.

But what I say is true, at least from my experience. In fact some people see the difference between EC and RC is purely their ethnic background. They have a different “Mass” because they are from this country or culture, not because there is a wider tradition behind it that is different.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

I think you missed his point. Peter came from Jerusalem. Then he established Antioch. Long before he got to Rome the Church grew in Asia Minor. Christianity is more of an Eastern religion (not Eastern in the sense of Taoism or Buddhism) before it became Western. Mainly because Jerusalem is where Christianity began and it is in the East.

 

[jwinch2]

Well said. I hate to say, but I think even Latins telling ECs to be true to our traditions can sometimes be a bit of a back-handed compliment, you know? Kind of like they’re saying “It’s fine for us to ignore our traditions, but you should know better because you’re Eastern.” (Let me stress that I said sometimes not always.)

I think you would find if you took a poll that Latin Catholics that the same persons who hope you continue your return to tradition also hope that their own patrimony will be restored to them. Its not 100% of course, but I believe there would be strong correlation. But yes, it does sometimes seem that way.

 

[Aramis]

Well, Prie dieu, if you think delatinization is so nonsensical, I guess the unique authority of the Pope you subscribe to is somehow subject to your unique authority since basically every pope since Paul VI has told the Eastern Catholics to return to their proper patrimony. Honestly, the manner in which you speak is the ignorance that is the bane of our church, saturated in your own vain pride, which is in direct contradiction to what the popes themselves have taught.

Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII also instructed the ECC’s to retain their rite, and enabled so doing, even outside traditional lands.

 

[Peter_J]

I think you would find if you took a poll that Latin Catholics that the same persons who hope you continue your return to tradition also hope that their own patrimony will be restored to them.

Sorry, I got a little carried away,

Well said. I hate to say, but I think even Latins telling ECs to be true to our traditions can sometimes be a bit of a back-handed compliment, you know? Kind of like they’re saying “It’s -]fine/-] one thing for us to ignore our traditions, but you should know better because you’re Eastern.” (Let me stress that I said sometimes not always.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII also instructed the ECC’s to retain their rite, and enabled so doing, even outside traditional lands.

Easier said than done.

 

[jwinch2]

Sorry, I got a little carried away,

No worries. I completely understand your frustration.

+Pax

 

[jwinch2]

Sorry, I got a little carried away,

I might add that being told to go back to your traditions to me, is a cause for joy. There are millions of Catholics in the Roman Rite who wish we would get told the same thing.

Peace,

 

[Peter_J]

I think you’re actually making my point for me. Millions of Catholics in the Roman Rite wish to be told “go back to your traditions”, but they aren’t being told that. Lack of adherence to tradition is consider no-big-deal as long as it’s in the Latin Church.

I feel like you’re arguing without actually *disagreeing *with anything.

 

[Peter_J]

I feel like you’re arguing without actually *disagreeing *with anything.

P.S. It’s too late to edit my last post; but on second thought, I think I *might *know what you are disagreeing with. You said:

I think you would find if you took a poll that Latin Catholics that the same persons who hope you continue your return to tradition also hope that their own patrimony will be restored to them. Its not 100% of course, but I believe there would be strong correlation. But yes, it does sometimes seem that way.

I’m not here to put your thinking under a microscope … I can’t really say whether you’re disagreeing or not, so I’ll just say what my own thinking is. In my experience, many Catholics who are rightly bothered by lack-of-adherence to tradition in EC Churches are *not *equally bothered by lack-of-adherence to tradition among Latin Catholics, and even marginalize those LCs who feel strongly about tradition.

That’s just a nutshell, but I think it’s adequate.

 

[jwinch2]

I think you’re actually making my point for me. Millions of Catholics in the Roman Rite wish to be told “go back to your traditions”, but they aren’t being told that. Lack of adherence to tradition is consider no-big-deal as long as it’s in the Latin Church.

I feel like you’re arguing without actually *disagreeing *with anything.

We are actually in complete agreement, so I am not sure where the impression that we are arguing comes from. Perhaps I was unclear in my statements, which certainly happens from time to time. Sorry about that. My intent was to show solidarity with what you were saying.

I am fully in support of the Eastern Catholic Churches returning to the traditions which are appropriate to them and I very much wish to see the same thing happen in the Roman Rite. However, you are correct in that many, if not most, do not seem to be all that concerned about it.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

I’m not here to put your thinking under a microscope … I can’t really say whether you’re disagreeing or not, so I’ll just say what my own thinking is.

No worries, I was likely unclear in my statements.

In my experience, many Catholics who are rightly bothered by lack-of-adherence to tradition in EC Churches are *not *equally bothered by lack-of-adherence to tradition among Latin Catholics, and even marginalize those LCs who feel strongly about tradition.

That is my experience as well. I find that to be very frustrating on a regular basis.

In fact, I was just speaking to that exact phenomenon with a Dominican Friar who was talking about an Eastern Catholic Parish in the Diocese of Fort Worth which has started to draw a good deal of Roman Rite Catholics as of late. The Roman Catholic Parish which exists right down the road has a ton of problems, but the main thing is almost a complete lack of respect for the traditions proper to the Roman Rite, while the Eastern Catholic Parish has undertaken a renewal of those traditions which are appropriate for them.

+Pax Christi

 

[Aramis]

I might add that being told to go back to your traditions to me, is a cause for joy. There are millions of Catholics in the Roman Rite who wish we would get told the same thing.

Peace,

Most of them are ignorant. Most of the Vatican II changes were a return to authentic traditions. Vs populem wasn’t, but it also wasn’t an authentic change of Vatican II’s origin. The lectionary change was not a return to tradition, but was firmly grounded in tradition, since the average roman didn’'t say the hours… and thus the OT reading being added was a compensation for rejection of tradition by the masses.

The removal of the Last Gospel and Leonine prayers are removal of accretions.
The Restoration of the diaconate to its full proper place, and of priestly concelebration: a return to the authentic praxis of the pre-trent Roman rite.
The relaxations on social interactions with non-Catholics: a return to Tradition as well.
The return to the vernacular was also a traditional thing.

The problem is not that the Post V II Rome isn’t traditional (excepting vs Populem), it’s that it’s antiquarian.