M
malphono
Guest
Philip, the [thread=428318]thread[/thread] Significance of Latin in traditional Catholicism? in Traditional Catholicism forum was getting a bit off-track, and rather than bell the cat in that forum, (particularly after the moderator’s note), I thought it might be better to start a thread here.
That said, I don’t disagree with the above quote in principle, but at the same time I have to say one thing: being “illumined by the light of the East as well as that of the West” can be taken as a two-edged sword. By that I mean the statement could easily be reversed, and if that happens voilà!, we’re back to the now-discredited idea of the “superiority of the Roman Church” and all that went with it.
I find it a losing battle to try to hammer things to a Western audience, particularly those who consider themselves “traditional.” Of course we have an obligation to educate, but it seems to me that it has to be done in context, and the thread in the other forum is a case in point. Making a general comparison between Western and Eastern practice is fine, but telling people that a particular Eastern practice is the best thing since sliced bread will cause cause problems. To me it hearkens to exactly the idea of touting one as “superior” to the other. As I said, it’s a two-edged sword.
Just my :twocents:
Yes, that’s true. But also keep in mind that, for bettor or worse, the CCEO e.g. was formally promulgated in Latin.
Despite all the latinizations of the past (and the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations that currently plague some of the Oriental Churches), Latin was never foisted on any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches.
Officially and legally, no, “Catholicism is not equivalent to Roman Catholicism” but in practical terms it is. At least it is so in the minds of the vast majority of Westerners. Personally, I find it tiresome to have to engage in the inevitable explanation each time the question comes up, so I normally avoid saying it that way. But that’s just me.I must once again point out that the Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church that happens to have several Eastern “rites” attached to it as so many (undesirable) appendeges. The Catholic Church is a communion of 20+ particular churches. Eastern Christians have their own theology, spirituality, discipline, etc. that are traditional to them and must be respected. Our heritage (liturgical, theological, spiritual, etc.) is equal in dignity and antiquity to the Latin heritage, as Vatican II and many popes prior and post have pointed out. If you want to be truly traditional then embrace the fulness of Tradition and allow yourself to be “illumined by the light of the East” as well as that of the West as the late John Paul II requested of all ROMAN Catholics. Catholicism is not equivalent to Roman Catholicism.
That said, I don’t disagree with the above quote in principle, but at the same time I have to say one thing: being “illumined by the light of the East as well as that of the West” can be taken as a two-edged sword. By that I mean the statement could easily be reversed, and if that happens voilà!, we’re back to the now-discredited idea of the “superiority of the Roman Church” and all that went with it.
I find it a losing battle to try to hammer things to a Western audience, particularly those who consider themselves “traditional.” Of course we have an obligation to educate, but it seems to me that it has to be done in context, and the thread in the other forum is a case in point. Making a general comparison between Western and Eastern practice is fine, but telling people that a particular Eastern practice is the best thing since sliced bread will cause cause problems. To me it hearkens to exactly the idea of touting one as “superior” to the other. As I said, it’s a two-edged sword.
Just my :twocents:
I see that I do need to be more careful in choosing my words. I wasn’t intending at all to tout Eastern Catholicism/Orthodoxy as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. I fully recognize that it has its problems just as Western Christianity has its problems. 
I was merely trying to point out that Catholic Tradition goes well beyond the Latin Church(es), a fact that most “self-proclaimed traditionalists” (to use a phrase from Fr. Taft) don’t seem able to grasp. I make these arguments as one who once shared the same opinions as many on that forum (i.e. Latin as the “universal language,” superiority of the Roman Rite and Church, Eastern Christians should just become Roman Catholics, implicitly Eastern Catholics aren’t “real” Catholics, etc.). Out of love for Christ and His Church I take very seriously His prayer “that all may be one…” We can’t all be one until Catholics recognize and fully appreciate Orthodoxy and vise versa.