Is there EC representation in the USCCB?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joab_Anias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All Eastern and Oriental Catholic hierarchs in the US are members of the USCCB, as is true of their counterparts and the equivalent bodies in other nations

Many years,

Neil
 
Whether they should be members of the USCCB is another question.
 
Keep in mind that most of these Eastern bishops also have seats on the Holy Synod of their traditional homeland churches.
 
Because “conferences” of bishops are a Latin innovation. It would be better for the bishops of the various Eastern Catholic Churches to form a separate synod, which could then address issues of concern to their particular Churches.
 
Apotheoun said:
Because “conferences” of bishops are a Latin innovation. It would be better for the bishops of the various Eastern Catholic Churches to form a separate synod, which could then address issues of concern to their particular Churches.
Click to expand...
Interesting, where and how should bishops of different rites be consolidated then?

Also, do you realize that the term innovation you use is often meant as an insult? Not saying you are but it makes me wonder.

Peace.
 
Joab_Anias said:
Interesting, where and how should bishops of different rites be consolidated then?

Also, do you realize that the term innovation you use is often meant as an insult? Not saying you are but it makes me wonder.

Peace.
Click to expand...
I would not be opposed to the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches uniting in the United States, but the bishops of the Churches within the Byzantine tradition would not need to unify structurally in order to meet together periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern.

That said, I think that membership in the USCCB has had a bad effect on the Ruthenian bishops in America, because when they issued the particular law of the Metropolia it showed major signs of Latinization, e.g., the reduction of the Eucharistic fast to one hour before receiving communion.
 
Apotheoun said:
I would not be opposed to the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches uniting in the United States, but the bishops of the Churches within the Byzantine tradition would not need to unify structurally in order to meet together periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern.

That said, I think that membership in the USCCB has had a bad effect on the Ruthenian bishops in America, because when they issued the particular law of the Metropolia it showed major signs of Latinization, e.g., the reduction of the Eucharistic fast to one hour before receiving communion.
Click to expand...
I see. If your bishops adopt something that is common to the west why is it considered Latinization if it comes from them? What is this saying for your bishops? Could it be they came to this conclusion on their own even though its something common to the western Catholics?
 
Joab_Anias said:
I see. If your bishops adopt something that is common to the west why is it considered Latinization if it comes from them? What is this saying for your bishops? Could it be they came to this conclusion on their own even though its something common to the western Catholics?
Click to expand...
Actually, the new Eastern code of canon law is itself a massive Latinization, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch has himself said, and that is why he is calling for a major revision of socalled “Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.”

The one hour Eucharistic fast is a modern Latin practice; so, yes, it is a Latinization, and it has no place in the Ruthenian Church.
 
Apotheoun said:
Actually, the new Eastern code of canon law is itself a massive Latinization, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch has himself said, and that is why he is calling for a major revision of socalled “Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.”

The one hour Eucharistic fast is a modern Latin practice; so, yes, it is a Latinization, and it has no place in the Ruthenian Church.
Click to expand...
Simply because its a Roman practice does not prove to me Rome in any way asked the Eastern Catholics to adopt it.
 
Joab_Anias said:
Simply because its a Roman practice does not prove to me Rome in any way asked the Eastern Catholics to adopt it.
Click to expand...
Not all Latinizations have been imposed upon the Eastern Churches by Rome.

That said, sadly Rome does appoint the bishops of the Ruthenian Church in America, and so by proxy Rome has imposed this modern innovation upon us.
 
Apotheoun said:
Not all Latinizations have been imposed upon the Eastern Churches by Rome.

That said, sadly Rome does appoint the bishops of the Ruthenian Church in America, and so by proxy Rome has imposed this modern innovation upon us.
Click to expand...
So if Rome appoints the bishops in America then they should be in the USCCB. I see no crime in assimilating the culture you live in. I have lived abroad and did as they did without even really thinking about it. Perhaps this is the case here. Nor would I balk at a little Easternizing. Perhaps I have some and don’t even know it.
 
Joab_Anias said:
So if Rome appoints the bishops in America then they should be in the USCCB. I see no crime in assimilating the culture you live in. I have lived abroad and did as they did without even really thinking about it. Perhaps this is the case here. Nor would I balk at a little Easternizing. Perhaps I have some and don’t even know it.
Click to expand...
Actually, the pope should not be appointing our bishops.

I was born in America, and so I have no need to “assimilate” to American culture. Moreover, as far as “ecclesiastical culture” is concerned, I have no interest whatsoever in assimilating to Latin practices. In fact, that would defeat the whole purpose of my having transferred out of the Latin Church three years ago.
 
Joab_Anias said:
Why not he appoints ours?
Click to expand...
The Ruthenian Church is supposed to be a self-governing Church.

The pope has no authority to appoint bishops in the sui juris Churches of the East. He is – after all – only the first among equals in the episcopate.
 
Apotheoun said:
The Ruthenian Church is supposed to be a self-governing Church.

The pope has no authority to appoint bishops in the sui juris Churches of the East. He is – after all – only the first among equals in the episcopate.
Click to expand...
Well something doesn’t sound right. I am sure something is missing to this story. All dioceses are self governing yet in union with each other. How is it that Rome is doing something it has no authority to do I wonder?
 
Joab_Anias said:
Well something doesn’t sound right. I am sure something is missing to this story. All dioceses are self governing yet in union with each other. How is it that Rome is doing something it has no authority to do I wonder?
Click to expand...
Our Council of Hierarchs is fairly impotent. It would be better for the Ruthenian Church in America to affiliate with the Ruthenians in Europe, or even with the Ukrainians or Melkites, and become members of the Holy Synod of one of those Churches, so that we can have more independence from Roman control.
 
Apotheoun said:
Our Council of Hierarchs is fairly impotent. It would be better for the Ruthenian Church in America to affiliate with the Ruthenians in Europe, or even with the Ukrainians or Melkites, and become members of the Holy Synod of one of those Churches, so that we can have more independence from Roman control.
Click to expand...
You consider yourself controled by Rome? I am missing the Catholic sentiment here.

Are those Churches you mention Catholic as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top