"Insecurities"?

[Thomas48]

Sorry if I’m going off on a tangent here but I feel this is worth mentioning, the state of the Latin Catholics in Kerala however, is very sad. When looking at historical social customs they were very highly disrespected by the Thomas Christians and very much by the Hindus. Since the Syrian Christians or Thomas Christians were the original Christians in India the Hindus had very much respect for them, and history claims that they placed us high on there caste system but the Latin Catholics which were predominantly poor Hindu fisher folk that the Latin Missionaries took under wing, were seen as traitors to Hinduism by the Hindu Community. The Hindus accordingly were said to have placed them very lowly on their social ladder. While the Thomas Christians received many privileges from Hindu Kings the Latin Catholics were cast aside.

 

[ronyodish]

the Assyrian Church of the East has more byzantinisations and latinisations for example: the ACoE uses byzantine crowns and genuflections.

shlomo3amrooh,

In regards to genuflections, I’m not sure if this practice would be considered a Latinization. Apparently, genuflections were practiced in Persia before the Christian era, as this wiki article states: “In 328 BC, Alexander the Great introduced into his court etiquette some form of genuflection already in use in Persia”.

Also, here is an Assyrian relief art from the reign of Ashurnasirpal II (875 - 860 B.C.), which shows a genuflection:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It is possible that when the Assyrians converted to Christianity, they kept genuflection as one of the ways in which to show respect to Christ and the Cross, in light of such passages as this one by Mar Paulos: “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:10).

Anyways, I’m not certain either way, I just think that genuflection may not necessarily be a Latinization in the ACoE. Or perhaps, it’s the other way around, meaning the practice is originally an Assyrianization/Persianization that has been adopted by others.

God bless,

Rony

 

[spina1953]

WOW!!! As I Latin Catholic I am learning so much about the Eastern Catholic Traditions and beliefs. To me I am one of those who think and believe that Catholic of whatever Rite one is are and is Catholic, and that means to me to be one in faith. I think there are many Latin Rite Catholic’s who are very much unfamiliar of the various Rites especially of those from the East so do not understand the why they are different in many ways from the Latin Rite Catholic’s. I also think this is true about the Orthodox that the only thing one might know in some way it the reasons some propugate or promulate that just leads to confussion and bais against appreciating what each Rite has to offer in better understanding of the Church as a whole. I thank everyone who contributes to my learning and better understanding of the different Rites of the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

To me I am one of those who think and believe that Catholic of whatever Rite one is are and is Catholic, and that means to me to be one in faith.

Well, “one in faith” *is *the ideal. But keep in mind that not everything that is generally believed is actually *required *to be believed (and even when someone disagrees with something that’s “required to be believed”, breaking-of-communion/excommunication doesn’t always follow).

I also think this is true about the Orthodox that the only thing one might know in some way it the reasons some propugate or promulate that just leads to confussion and bais against appreciating what each Rite has to offer in better understanding of the Church as a whole.

I won’t disagree with that, but I want to point out that the Western-Rite Orthodox make up a *very *small fraction of Orthodoxy. (For comparison/perspective: out of every thousand Catholics, 16 or 17 are Eastern Catholics; but I’m sure that far less than one-in-a-thousand Orthodox are WRO.)

 

[spina1953]

Peter J: Thanks for you post. I understand where you are coming from and apperciate your thoughts. I was speaking more of the Different Rites within or in communion with Rome more so then WRO as I do not know very much about that area of Orthodoxcy. I am thinking also of the richness of Tradition of the Eastern Rites that make up the Church as a whole and that there seems to me to be a lot of misunderstanding among us Latin Rite Catholic’s in what is believed and what is agreed on. I’ve only been posting a couple of months now and so far I see a great many posts that fail to apperciate what the other is saying about what they believe as though it has to somehow conform to Western thought or thinking when each sees its beliefs using different terms to explain that belief. It just seems to me or appears that many of us Latin Rite Catholic’s fail to apperciate our Eastern Catholic’s Tradition and Rites and how they bring richness to the Church as a whole. Sorry to be so redundent on this. Thanks for your post.

 

[dzheremi]

• Are the ECC a hinderance to union

Not to be rude, but how could they not be? With the exception of those of the East Syriac tradition, and possibly the Maronites and Italo-Albanians, all the non-Latin churches in communion with Rome are carved out sections of preexisting Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches, many of which were purposely proselytized to by Roman Catholic missionaries of various stripes with the explicit goal of subverting the native Orthodox Church to which these people belonged to and replacing it with a church loyal to Rome. This was the modus operandi of the Roman Catholic church in all traditionally non-Roman lands up until the very recent past (at least in terms of the timeline of Christianity), and can be argued to be continuing on in a slightly different guise down to this very day.

• How can we show our Orthodox brethren that we are still Syriac

I would think that they can recognize the language being used in the liturgy, and practices inherited from them by you as a result of your common heritage to the extent that you’ve preserved it. So I have to ask, mostly as a rhetorical question: Why would this even be a concern of theirs? I think I understand why it would be a concern of yours (given how the non-Latin Catholics were often told in one way or another that they needn’t renounce their traditions, only to embrace Roman ecclesiology), but I’m just guessing that if it were all about being “Syriac” in some way, then such a division as exists between Syriac Catholics and Syriac Orthodox, to whatever extent it does exist, is rooted in more than what you two may already share in common. Granted, there are plenty of examples I’m sure we could come up with of a lack of recognition of those differences (particularly in the isolated Christian communities of the Middle East), but these are from ignorance, and surely we cannot all proceed from ignorance, as though whatever happens in Qaraqosh or wherever is ecclesiology acceptable when it isn’t to at least one of the two communions which it concerns.

• How can we show our Orthodox brethren that one can become Catholic and not Roman.

You are already doing that by being Catholic and not Roman. That the Orthodox remain uninterested in becoming Catholic themselves should tell you something.

Even very beautiful non-Roman liturgies are still unacceptable, not because they are obviously deficient in terms of praxis (there’s plenty of that, too, but I won’t link to it here), but because the ecclesiology and related theology that is professed through them is unacceptable and un-Orthodox. The Eastern Catholic churches are no more “Orthodox with a Pope” than the Orthodox Church is “Orthodox without a Pope”, and we are certainly not that. I’m not saying that you are saying that we are, but the way that these concerns are phrased is a little odd in that it takes the RC communion’s stances, prerogatives, and concerns as being normative and what should shape your approach to your Orthodox mother churches. This reminds me more than a little bit of why OO-EO talks break down when they reach any level of depth…the mindsets are too different, so we have to some degree different ideas of what the faith does and does not contain. At least where I’m sitting, the faith does not concern proving that you’re of a particular cultural or liturgical background, or that I can be in communion with any one given see without compromise, or any of this other stuff…I mean, these things are already the case, in that I’m already of a particular cultural background, my church already preserves its liturgical heritage quite well, and nothing in the world (much less communion with Rome, which is un-Orthodox) would be worth even thinking of compromising what we’ve been handed down from the Apostles since the days of St. Mark the Evangelist, which we already have not done and hence don’t need Rome to help us “preserve” (or Constantinople, or any other church we’re not in communion with, for that matter).

There will never be a union (and possibly shouldn’t be) if the ECC can’t show their Orthodox brethren that they can be both Eastern and Catholic.

I agree that there won’t be union, but not for the reason given. Quite simply, we do not need it for any of the reasons given, and we care more about our own ecclesiology and theology than appeasing what Rome or those in union with her think we need or why we need it. Maybe if we shared the Roman ecclesiological presuppositions that the ECCs have apparently agreed to in coming to union in the first place then these kinds of problems and their supposed fixes might make more sense, but as it is we might as well be speaking different languages…

 

[Peter_J]

Not to be rude, but how could they not be? With the exception of those of the East Syriac tradition, and possibly the Maronites and Italo-Albanians, all the non-Latin churches in communion with Rome are carved out sections of preexisting Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches, many of which were purposely proselytized to by Roman Catholic missionaries of various stripes with the explicit goal of subverting the native Orthodox Church to which these people belonged to and replacing it with a church loyal to Rome. This was the modus operandi of the Roman Catholic church in all traditionally non-Roman lands up until the very recent past (at least in terms of the timeline of Christianity), **and can be argued to be continuing on in a slightly different guise down to this very day.
**

Right, it’s the age-old question (or what will someday be called “the age-old question”) for Catholics: when we say “ecumenism” do we mean “ecumenism of return”?

 

[dvdjs]

Not to be rude, but how could they not be? With the exception of those of the East Syriac tradition, and possibly the Maronites and Italo-Albanians, all the non-Latin churches in communion with Rome are carved out sections of preexisting Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches, many of which were purposely proselytized to by Roman Catholic missionaries of various stripes with the explicit goal of subverting the native Orthodox Church to which these people belonged to and replacing it with a church loyal to Rome.

All are carved out sections of churches ? I guess some bishops are more equal than others after all. “Many …” Oh good. More exceptions, certainly including Brest and Uzhhorod.

This was the modus operandi of the Roman Catholic church in all traditionally non-Roman lands up until the very recent past (at least in terms of the timeline of Christianity), and can be argued to be continuing on in a slightly different guise down to this very day.

That the Orthodox remain uninterested in becoming Catholic themselves should tell you something.

It does. But moreso:

we care more about our own ecclesiology and theology.

And less of the call that all be one, or, for that matter the great commission. That is the real divide, not the model of unity, but the interest in it, the desire for it. Some are don’t care and are perfectly content to cut the baby in half. But the true mother is looking for something else.

 

[dzheremi]

All are carved out sections of churches ? I guess some bishops are more equal than others after all. “Many …” Oh good. More exceptions, certainly including Brest and Uzhhorod.

I don’t know about more equal, but certainly some are Orthodox and some are not, and hence some are to be followed while others are not to be followed. As to your examples, since (once again) I am not Byzantine so these things represent nothing to me, I’ll let those for whom they represent a wound to the Church address them, should they wish to.

And less of the call that all be one, or, for that matter the great commission. That is the real divide, not the model of unity, but the interest in it, the desire for it. Some are don’t care and are perfectly content to cut the baby in half. But the true mother is looking for something else.

Oh please. Spare me your “We Catholics really care” emotionalism. You’re not repudiating any of your Catholic distinctives any more than any Orthodox are embracing them, so your care for the baby isn’t any more than ours. I know we are to assume good faith here, but this does seem like a baseless jab. Careful! You might hit the baby when throwing those stones!

 

[Celticnovice]

shlomo3amrooh,

In regards to genuflections, I’m not sure if this practice would be considered a Latinization. Apparently, genuflections were practiced in Persia before the Christian era, as this wiki article states: “In 328 BC, Alexander the Great introduced into his court etiquette some form of genuflection already in use in Persia”.

Also, here is an Assyrian relief art from the reign of Ashurnasirpal II (875 - 860 B.C.), which shows a genuflection:

http://www.aina.org/images/bmfa14.jpg

It is possible that when the Assyrians converted to Christianity, they kept genuflection as one of the ways in which to show respect to Christ and the Cross, in light of such passages as this one by Mar Paulos: “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:10).

Anyways, I’m not certain either way, I just think that genuflection may not necessarily be a Latinization in the ACoE. Or perhaps, it’s the other way around, meaning the practice is originally an Assyrianization/Persianization that has been adopted by others.

God bless,

Rony

Thank you Rony…interesting post

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t know about more equal.

Your reduction of episcopal sees to a section of a church speaks clearly on the point,

Oh please. Spare me your “We Catholics really care” emotionalism.

I don’t think that this is an appeal to emotion at all. Just history, the sense of which is validated in your post.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

All are carved out sections of churches ? I guess some bishops are more equal than others after all. “Many …” Oh good. More exceptions, certainly including Brest and Uzhhorod.



It does. But moreso:

And less of the call that all be one, or, for that matter the great commission. That is the real divide, not the model of unity, but the interest in it, the desire for it. Some are don’t care and are perfectly content to cut the baby in half. But the true mother is looking for something else.

Lets take a snapshot of this post. This here highlights a point we have made for centuries.

True Mother? You use our language, our Liturgy, and share many customs…but your mindset is thoroughly Latin. THIS is why we say you are not the same as us, and all the eyerolling in the world will not excuse or justify the U word in any form.
Perhaps you view the actions of Rome as necessary…that we are bigoted schismatics who are leading people astray and standing in the way of Unity.

Well ok. Own that. Lets drop all the pretenses.

Ecumenism of Return IS the Latin position. You can soften it and Sugar coat it all you want but Rome will never give up its claims to Authority. It all amounts to “coming under” the Pope in some form. We will not accept Papal Supremacy.

The Eastern Catholics are in a bind, and it is tragic. You are stuck in a mess you didnt make.

 

[MorEphrem]

Ecumenism of Return IS the Latin position. You can soften it and Sugar coat it all you want but Rome will never give up its claims to [unilateral] Authority. It all amounts to “coming under” the Pope in some form. We will not accept Papal Supremacy.

So true, sad to say (bolded text is my addition).

It makes me roll my eyes whenever the qualifying question for my “orthodoxy” is “but are you under the Pope?” I’ve gotten many rude responses when I’ve said my patriarch is in communion with the Pope and likened it to a situation of a hypothetically younger brother not being “under” an elder brother. The fact of the matter is Latins equate primacy with the power to interfere in the operation of sui iuris Churches (like rig synodal elections, but I won’t even touch that…)

 

[Peter_J]

Ecumenism of Return IS the Latin position. You can soften it and Sugar coat it all you want but Rome will never give up its claims to Authority. It all amounts to “coming under” the Pope in some form.

I wouldn’t call it “*the *Latin position” (emphasis added), but there certainly are a disturbing number of LCs – and a disturbing number of ECs – who subscribe to it.

As far as the “sugar coating”, well that’s a huge problem. Hell, “ecumenism of return” pretty much automatically entails sugar coating – to my mind it would be better for traditionalist Catholics to just come right out and say “I’m against ecumenism.”

 

[dvdjs]

True Mother? You use our language, our Liturgy, and share many customs…but your mindset is thoroughly Latin. THIS is why we say you are not the same as us, and all the eyerolling in the world will not excuse or justify the U word in any form.

You know our mindset? You know my mindset? Puhlease.

Ecumenism of Return IS the Latin position. You can soften it and Sugar coat it all you want but Rome will never give up its claims to Authority. It all amounts to “coming under” the Pope in some form. We will not accept Papal Supremacy.

Not sure that you understand the concept apart from a straw man to knock down. You have accepted Supremacy from the EP - other Patriarchs have been absolutely under the EP - exercised in a way beyond anything form Rome. So this is not about reality, just polemics,

The Eastern Catholics are in a bind, and it is tragic. You are stuck in a mess you didnt make.

We actually love our way and don’t see it as tragic or messy. Sorry that you just don’t get it.

 

[josie_L]

So true, sad to say (bolded text is my addition).

It makes me roll my eyes whenever the qualifying question for my “orthodoxy” is “but are you under the Pope?” I’ve gotten many rude responses when I’ve said my patriarch is in communion with the Pope and likened it to a situation of a hypothetically younger brother not being “under” an elder brother. The fact of the matter is Latins equate primacy with the power to interfere in the operation of sui iuris Churches (like rig synodal elections, but I won’t even touch that…)

It’s good to know you know how every Latin thinks.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

To dvdjs:

"You know our mindset? You know my mindset? Puhlease. "

REPLY: Your evocation of Rome as Mother, and the tone of your other posts (I do actually read people’s stuff) betray a Latin mindset. It certainly isn’t Orthodox, and I mean that in the full sense Ecclesiologically (whether it is EO or OO). Rome is not Our Mother Church, unless of course you are a Latin. You may be IN COMMUNION perhaps, but even that is a stretch given the reality, and such a relationship mostly exists on paper (although the Melkites attempt to assert their independence, good on them).

I suppose your dismissive eyeroll implies that I think I’m psychic, which I am assuredly not.

“Not sure that you understand the concept apart from a straw man to knock down. You have accepted Supremacy from the EP - other Patriarchs have been absolutely under the EP - exercised in a way beyond anything form Rome. So this is not about reality, just polemics,”

REPLY: Supremacy? So the EP can depose Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow? Antioch certainly doesn’t kowtow to the EP, as the current conflict between it and Jeruselem over Jurisdictions demonstrate. Past Patriarchs of Constantinople certainly were worldly, and even meddled in the affairs of other Jurisdictions. Guess what? That was not canonical, and such shenanigans certainly are not considered normative or even desireable. That is no more representative than what the bad Popes did in the past, which Latin Apologists rightly point out. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your argument. I won’t bore you with Orthodox Politics, because that would require a whole other thread.

Who is being Polemical?

“We actually love our way and don’t see it as tragic or messy. Sorry that you just don’t get it.”

REPLY: Wow. This is the first time I have met somebody who is gung ho for the U-word. I don’t mean that as a slag either…I asked for honesty and dropping all pretense…and I got it.

Not sure where to go from there. You’re right, I don’t get it. But, if you view the Union of Brest as a good thing, well uh…ok.

 

[josie_L]

To dvdjs:

"You know our mindset? You know my mindset? Puhlease. "

REPLY: Your evocation of Rome as Mother, and the tone of your other posts (I do actually read people’s stuff) betray a Latin mindset. It certainly isn’t Orthodox, and I mean that in the full sense Ecclesiologically (whether it is EO or OO). Rome is not Our Mother Church, unless of course you are a Latin. You may be IN COMMUNION perhaps, but even that is a stretch given the reality, and such a relationship mostly exists on paper (although the Melkites attempt to assert their independence, good on them).

I suppose your dismissive eyeroll implies that I think I’m psychic, which I am assuredly no

“Not sure that you understand the concept apart from a straw man to knock down. You have accepted Supremacy from the EP - other Patriarchs have been absolutely under the EP - exercised in a way beyond anything form Rome. So this is not about reality, just polemics,”

REPLY: Supremacy? So the EP can depose Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow? Antioch certainly doesn’t kowtow to the EP, as the current conflict between it and Jeruselem over Jurisdictions demonstrate. Past Patriarchs of Constantinople certainly were worldly, and even meddled in the affairs of other Jurisdictions. Guess what? That was not canonical, and such shenanigans certainly are not considered normative or even desireable. That is no more representative than what the bad Popes did in the past, which Latin Apologists rightly point out. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your argument. I won’t bore you with Orthodox Politics, because that would require a whole other thread.

Who is being Polemical?

“We actually love our way and don’t see it as tragic or messy. Sorry that you just don’t get it.”

REPLY: Wow. This is the first time I have met somebody who is gung ho for the U-word. I don’t mean that as a slag either…I asked for honesty and dropping all pretense…and I got it.

Not sure where to go from there. You’re right, I don’t get it. But, if you view the Union of Brest as a good thing, well uh…ok.

Your post lacks charity.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Your post lacks charity.

Would you call your sarcastic reply to MorEphrem charitable?

Perhaps I was a little stinging in my reply, and rereading it I could have blunted the edges a little. I do applaud his honesty, and there isn’t much more I can say to him on that front. He believes strongly in his communion…ok. We obviously disagree, but it was a surprise to see an Eastern Catholic react that way.

But, the Feast of the Nativity is upon us. Arguing on the Internet is not the way to spend it, so I wish everyone a Blessed Feast. Perhaps we will talk again, if my name has not taken on a greyish hue and a status update posted underneath it in the interim…

 

[josie_L]

Would you call your sarcastic reply to MorEphrem charitable?

No, not sarcastic considering he made no qualifications, that’s why I said what I said.