He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
The most disappointing thing in your list is that the Orthodox are nowhere to be seen, and it is true, many of them magically disappeared out of a sudden. I’ve been lurking here for quite a while.
Well, there’s not much for me to say … you’ve summed it up pretty well, particularly in the portions I took the liberty to highlight.
Quite understandable. Eastern and Oriental Catholics are very protective of their/our Traditional patrimonies, and when there is indication of changes, there will be a backlash. I do, however, wish such Catholics would be more discerning (i.e., these conflicts are not a matter of Pope vs. Eastern/Oriental Churches, but of local Western hierarchies jealous of what they perceive to be their rightful jurisdicitonal territory; these conflicts occur in exactly those places where that tension should be expected to happen).
Nothing really wrong with that, except when such Catholics start to depend on the Orthodox to explain Latin Catholic doctrines and practices. For all their complaints that Latin Catholics try to impose on Easterns a Latin understanding of their own doctrines and practices, they are incoherently doing the exact same thing in their assessment of Latin doctrines and practices.
Well, to be fair, you get a lot of that on the Traditional Catholicism forum from Roman Catholics, as well (though I hardly spend time there at all). On the other hand, aside from legitimate differences, I think that a lot of this “bashing” from Eastern or Oriental Catholics comes from their dependence on non-Catholic sources to explain Latin doctrines and practices. So your complaint has merit in that respect.
It’s not exactly one-sided. The Latins are also subject to this, and the Latin bishops are also quite jealous of their prerogatives. This was a big deal at V1. Many bishops of the Majority party were echoing the same concerns as the Minority Party, which is why the changes to Pastor Aeternus from its original drafts were made. Partcular case in point is the objections the Latin bishops had to the Pope giving the Easterns their own bishop in Latin jurisdictional territory during the married clergy controversy in the early 20th century. This tension was also evident at V2, when the principle of collegiality was formalized as the ecclesiastical polity of the Catholic Church.One thing I will add is that there seems to me to be a recurring theme (in the CCEO and in Rome in general) of “mother knows best” – the very existence of the “Oriental Congregation” is a good example – and that doesn’t sit particularly well with me. I frankly don’t see the need for “Communion” to be quite so complicated and one-sided. It’s kind of like “we make the laws for you and you will follow the laws that we have given.”
Can you please clarify?
I dont think “basically inconsequential” is an appropriate descriptive. All the Churches kept regular contact and regularly exchanged signs of brotherhood.
And vice-versa.
Good observation.
I don’t see much difference between the imperative custom imposes on Easterns and Orientals on the one hand and the imperative canon law imposes on Easterns and Orientals, on the other. Canons are simply the formalization of custom. And Canons are not set in stone. Even the canons assert that bishops can grant dispensations from universal laws of the Church. I just don’t see a big deal that something has been set down in canon law whereas before it was not.
Your pov is always a good read, from my pov.Anyway … so much for my :twocents: …
True, but I think there is a difference. Within the Latin Church is one thing, and concern over prerogatives would seem to be normal. (I won’t go into the matter of Eastern bishops in Latin territory except to reiterate what I’ve said in the past: there is foundation in Tradition for the “one bishop” concept.) OTOH, in relation to how Rome deals with those pesky Easterners and Orientals, it is clearly (to me, at least) one-sided.
Although a few items in that Instruction (e.g. Chapter XIV) are general, it’s also clear from even a cursory reading that most of the rest focuses on things Byzantine. But even so, (and IIRC), the Instruction was given without it having received an approbation, and so it’s technically really rather toothless. That toothless character is very evident in the Orient: for example, item 103 (The Altar) is routinely ignored by the Maronites, the SOC, the Syro-Malabars, the Coptic CC, and I don’t know who else (but including the Melkites in some cases). (Some Chaldean bishops also ignore it despite the norms expressed and reestablished by the Holy Synod a few years back, but because the Holy Synod addressed the matter directly, it becomes more of an internal affair of thumbing their noses at the Synod rather than one of flouting the Instruction.) And because of the toothless nature of the thing, those who flagrantly ignore it will not be called to task.
Sure it is. Contact and “signs of brotherhood” notwithstanding, the fact is that those pesky Easterners & Orientals have often been but an after-thought.
Yes, but what choice was/is there? In any case, how the East & Orient deal with Rome is not the point. We don’t set policy or write the laws, do we?
In practical terms, no, there’s not much difference, which is why the net result is invariably the same. OTOH, there is a difference in spirit. Not to repeat myself but I still say it’s “We have given you these laws and you will follow them or else” otherwise stated as “mother knows best” syndrome. And that’s where I see the major part of the problem.
I would agree that it has occured primarily in those places where the Latin Church has been predominant (i.e. in the diaspora), except perhaps in the case of the Churches of St. Thomas (unless my understanding of history is incorrect, but I do believe the Latins came later).
As regards Il Instruccione, perhaps being a Byzantine myself it never occurred to me, but I agree with your assessment upon reflection.
Technically toothless, yes, but occassion was taken upon its issuance to call the Eastern Churches in America on the proverbial carpet. The fact remains that even though the prelates of the Eastern & Oriental Catholic Churches are in communion with the Pope and accountable to him, in practice, they must go through the Congregation for everything.
When the Propaganda sent its missionaries to Egypt in the 19th century, it requested the then-current Pope (I forgot who it was at that particular time, perhaps Pio Nono, perhaps Pope Leo XIII) if it could introduce Latinizations into the Coptic Liturgy. The Pope said “NO.” When the Latinizers appealed to the Pope to maintain a hybridized Tradition in Ukraine and in India, in opposition to Synodal decisions, the Pope said “NO.” How are those situations different from what occurs in the territories that are traditionally predominantly or only under the omophor of Latin bishops? Granted, the conflict is more poignant, especially on the matter of married priesthood, because though the Eastern and Oriental traditions easily allow for both married and celibate priests (which is why an enforced married priesthood won’t happen in the Traditional territories of the Eastern/Oriental Churches), only a celibate priesthood exists in the Traditional territory of the Latins. There’s no one-sidedness there as far as I see - it’s just a matter of the Pope helping to preserve the local traditions established by the local hierarchy. Can you think of other circumstances that justifies a perception that it is “one-sided?”
Can you give a link to this document? I admit I’ve never read it.
Well, shouldn’t we be? The bishop of Rome should focus on his particular Church and I’m sure he has enough to worry about having the largest Church to watch over. He should pay attention to us only if our hierarchy appeals to him. Why should you complain that he is not micromanaging us?
We have our own canons and particular laws that were not written by Latins. The general canons of our Churches (the CCEO) refers to it all the time.
OK. It’s a matter of perception. I admit I’ve lived most of my life outside the Catholic Church, so I don’t understand this “second-class” mentality fully. I see how Latins can be rather imposing and triumphal in their approach to us here on the internet, but I’ve rarely if ever met the same in real life (thankfully), and I don’t tend to let my worldview be dominated by what is on the I-net (your experience is obviously different, and I respect that). I don’t see the papacy as some foreign power in my Church, but as divinely established as one of the organs for the unity and preservation of the Faith of the entire Church, set there by God to help my Church when it is needed.
Likely your example involved Leo XIII. (In my wildest imagination I can’t conceive of Pio Nono in that role but I digress.) And whereas it may have been so in the CCC and perhaps also in the UGCC, I don’t think it hold water in regard to the Syro-Malabars. Remember that there, the latinizations were imposed from without, and even today, despite all the “reforms” etc, what one finds is a craps-shoot. Some dioceses (e.g. Chanangassery) are considered “Oriental” whilst others (e.g. Ernakulum & Thrissur) are still highly latinized and are now in the Novus Ordo mode. And now, even without the likes of the direct latinizers, I still don’t see Rome doing anything concrete to correct that last, do you?
And even without it, we really cannot do anything that is not subject in one way or another to review by one or another of the other Roman Congregations. Sadly, it’s all a fact of life.Sorry, I don’t. I downloaded it years ago and no longer have the link, but perhaps Diak or someone else does.Can you give a link to this document? I admit I’ve never read it.
Yes, so the focus should be but in reality we all know it is not so. The Roman bureaucracy is like an octopus, and you know it as well as I do.Well, shouldn’t we be? The bishop of Rome should focus on his particular Church and I’m sure he has enough to worry about having the largest Church to watch over. He should pay attention to us only if our hierarchy appeals to him. Why should you complain that he is not micromanaging us?
Yes, and…? They may not be written by Latins, but let’s face reality and admit that the canon lawyers involved are all, each and every one, products of the Roman system. And here we see yet another of those tentacles grasping away.
Indeed, my life experience is different. I see the influence every single day. No, Rome doesn’t commonly become directly involved, (and as I mentioned above, often when something should be done, they just sit on their hands and wait for it all to go away. Go figure …), but the influence of Rome has been – and remains – highly toxic.
You asked for the document referred to by Malphono. It is:
The Synodal decision was made by and for the Syro-Malankara Church (IIRC), not the Syro-Malabars. If the Syro-Malabars are slower at de-Latinizing, that’s their business. The Pope gave an apostolic exhortation on the matter, and it’s in the hands of the local Churches now. I don’t understand why you should lay any more responsibility (or blame, for that matter) on Rome for what the local hierarchies decide to do or not do.
Can you explain?Though there were some voices from the Latin Church mitigating the ages-old Christological debate around the turn of 20th century, for the most part the OO were still considered Monophysite heretics. Understandable, don’t you think?
In what specifically?
On matters directly pertaining to the Faith itself, I believe it is the head bishop’s job (collegially/synodically, of course) to keep the unity of the Faith. This includes the Liturgy, unless you deny the irrefragable relationship between our Faith and the Liturgy. The head bishop should also be able to enforce the universal canons of the Church (though, as mentioned before, the bishops for the good of their flock have it within their rights to grant dispensations from universal law).
I think this perception is borne of a notion that the papacy is some sort of foreign power. It’s not. It’s part of the divine constitution of each of our Churches (rightly understood according to the Fathers of V1, not according to neo-ultramontanist exaggerations). However, I do understand and agree with the great majority of your objections to the involvement of the papal Curia.I said “pesky Easterners & Orientals” because the attitude from “on high” is that we are but naughty kids who need a den-mother to keep us in our place. Reminds me something our old friend, bpbasilphx, used to say: “get to the back of the bus.” We get dealt with as the “powers that be” see fit. If they want to interfere directly, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. But of course there is still that lovely Oriental Congregation to watch over those pesky kids.
Like I said, I agree with most of your objections to the involvement of the papal Curia in our Churches. The main difference between us on this point is that whereas you would lobby for its non-existence, I believe its role is important to facilitate the aid that the Pope can give to the Churches, as well to be a clearinghouse for advice. It should have no legislative or judicial role in our Churches.
We don’t need micromanagement. We have our bishops. That’s just the way the Church works. Sometimes we don’t like the decisions of our bishops, but I really don’t understand why we should blame the Pope for that (if you are blaming the Curia, I’m with you
)I need to study more the composition of the Commission (though I don’t know if there are sufficient resources on the I-net for such an effort), but I would disagree on the basis this piece from Fr. Michael Kuchera of the Pontifical Oriental Institute:
No
I admit I don’t understand what you mean by “product of the Latin mindset.” Until you explain, my impression would be to respond “Yes.”
It had to have been the Syro-Malabars. (The Syro-Malankara didn’t come into communion with Rome until 1930, and are probably the most un-latinized of all the Oriental Churches.)The Synodal decision was made by and for the Syro-Malankara Church (IIRC), not the Syro-Malabars. If the Syro-Malabars are slower at de-Latinizing, that’s their business. The Pope gave an apostolic exhortation on the matter, and it’s in the hands of the local Churches now. I don’t understand why you should lay any more responsibility (or blame, for that matter) on Rome for what the local hierarchies decide to do or not do.
Actually, no I don’t. Perhaps the Propagandists and Anglican’s could have spent their time time better trying to convert those who adhere to a different religion. Don’t you think?
I may or may not agree. It depends on what “head bishop” means in this context.
The perception is borne out of experience. One has to merely look and listen. How does it **not **represent a “foreign power?” And it is not simply the Curia. The Curia exists and functions ad nutum papam, does it not? So, to play on something Harry Truman said, where does the buck stop? Three guesses. Eliminate the first two.
It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that we’ll never come to agreement on this.
Oh, I am intimately familiar with how the Church works. More so than you’’ ever know (and you’ll have to take my word for that since I’m not going to expound on it further, particularly in a public i-net forum). I’m quite sure you know this, but a number of “our bishops” are about as useful as the proverbial “mammary glands of a bull” plus many are more “Catholic than the Pope” and it does get tiresome. Drop by a Maronite church sometime and you’ll see what I mean. Or even tune-in to a broadcast of a Maronite or some neo-SCC, or Syro-Malabar USA service. Or even listen to a sermon (or homily or whatever one wants to call it), and that doesn’t have to be limited to any particular Church. You’re not likely to hear much about any Oriental (or Eastern, I suppose) spiritual patrimony beyond a cursory reference. But you will hear a lot about Latin theology, and spirituality. Often - and this is the best – even when they start with an Oriental theme, they end-up expounding on it in Latin terms. Is your experience in the CCC in LAX that much different? I doubt it.We don’t need micromanagement. We have our bishops. That’s just the way the Church works. Sometimes we don’t like the decisions of our bishops, but I really don’t understand why we should blame the Pope for that (if you are blaming the Curia, I’m with you
You’re missing the point. What the good Father says is all fine and dandy but I’m simply looking at the facts on the ground. Where did these canon lawyers study? Under what auspices? Who runs the schools? Again, think about it a minute.
Of course not.
It goes with the previous thought.
How True! It honestly makes me very wary of visiting orthodox churches and surrounding myself with their materials and arguments- Who knows? I may end up hating my own church a few years down the line! Or at the least convincing myself that the church’s authority is not what it is (binding) and the Pope not who the Church proclaims him to be. Some EC come off like they believe that they are more in communion with the E.O than their fellow Catholics and owe the E.O complete loyalty over and above (against, even) the Catholic Communion. 
Yet their fathers did not think so… I would join a parish for about a year, participate in the whole life of the Church to live my faith a different way…then I’d probably go back to my home .Come on people! This is the internet what do you expect?
Much as I really long to experience Eastern Catholicism, If I can’t find an Eastern Catholic Church here, even if I go to the Orthodox liturgies that are here, I’ll do it only once or a few times- To see what the Eastern and orientals liturgy and life are like. I wont make it a regular occurrence. I really wish there were Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches here…
Why shouldn’t we be more close to our Orthodox “parent” Churches? That is where our Churches came from. You can say that communion is like marriage, the RC Church is our wife but the Orthodox Church is our parent. We may live with the RC Church today but we are who we are because of the Orthodox Church.
Just go to the Orthodox pairsh. The Orthodox are not known for proselytizing (though there are some for sure) and if you don’t want to hear what they have to say, don’t ask a question. Nobody has been mean to me when I visit when I tell them I am Eastern Catholic. Just don’t try to receive Communion, you might be dragged out by your anklesMuch as I really long to experience Eastern Catholicism, If I can’t find an Eastern Catholic Church here, even if I go to the Orthodox liturgies that are here, I’ll do it only once or a few times- To see what the Eastern and orientals liturgy and life are like. I wont make it a regular occurrence. I really wish there were Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches here…
I think our sister’s point is that we as Eastern/Oriental Catholics can be as Orthodox as our Orthodox brethern without having to pay attention to the polemics against Latin Catholicism, because a lot of that polemicism is based on a misunderstanding of what Latin Catholics teach. It’s just reverse uniatism if you think about it.