What on Earth are you talking about? What Roman chauvinists? In the Catholic Communion, the Eastern rites take precedence. There may have been chauvinistic prelates, but if something was being forced, or there was bad treatment, then those prelates were going against “Rome”.I have yet to read any piece of literature on Maronite Church history that does not spend much space analyzing the very harmful effects of Latinization on the Church. May the Maronites be free of all foreign impositions and presuppositions soon. They, along with all of the eastern churches, certainly deserve much better than the treatment they’ve often received at the hands of Roman chauvinists.
That’s only bee true since about 1964. From 1900-1960, the popes started protecting the Eastern Rite faitful from Roman Rite chauvanism. (At least when said Roman chauvinism wasn’t from within the Eastern Church itself, as with HG, Bishop Nicolas Elko.)What on Earth are you talking about? What Roman chauvinists? In the Catholic Communion, the Eastern rites take precedence. There may have been chauvinistic prelates, but if something was being forced, or there was bad treatment, then those prelates were going against “Rome”.
I doubt latinization was harmful. Please explain. Also, if these “Latinizations” were the Maronites own desire, then what’s the problem?forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/confused.gifI did not say whether or not they were going for or against Rome. I have no axe to grind with Rome. I am canonically Roman Catholic myself. I just stated what I think pretty much everyone accepts as fact: That latinizations have happened within the Maronite Church, and that they have been harmful to it.
Much of the literature that I have read points the finger not only at Rome itself but also blames native Maronite latinizers as some of the strongest proponents of the ideology behind these changes. I have read similar about other Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Chaldean Church.
I agree with you on this point. The custom is to allow married men to become priests. Denying them this in North America is I believe wrong. The same is being done to the Ukrainian Catholics. If the bishops have the authority to enforce this, I am not sure they are correct, nor do I know from whom the orders come. JP II, my favorite pontif in my lifetime, seems to have started this “trend”, but IMO it is incorrect at best.I think the biggest example of latinization of the Maronites concerns a married clergy. For example in the Maronite suri iuris if you married you can still become a priest. Though you will be ineligible to the bishopric. But in the US you can’t even be married and be a Maronite priest. The US Maronite Bishops here forbid it. Yet, if you were married and become a priest in another country then its ok. So in a way we are doing it to ourselves atleast in the US. Bummer really. I had hoped otherwise.
Indeed? This doesn’t sound right. Also, the Maronites have always been in union with Rome and are not “unia”.That’s only bee true since about 1964. From 1900-1960, the popes started protecting the Eastern Rite faitful from Roman Rite chauvanism. (At least when said Roman chauvinism wasn’t from within the Eastern Church itself, as with HG, Bishop Nicolas Elko.)
In fact, several 18thC and 19thC councils made clear that the goal of uniatism was to eventually latinize the unia to the point they were indistinguishable from the Roman Rite.
Despite that, they were treated the same as the Byzantines for purposes of latinizations.Indeed? This doesn’t sound right. Also, the Maronites have always been in union with Rome and are not “unia”.
I agree 100%. :tiphat:The Eastern rites are very ancient and are in many ways seem closer to the original Jewish temple worship. The Latin rite used to be pretty close to the Eastern rites:clapping:, but now sadly resembles the United Church practices:tsktsk:. I like these icon things. They’re fun.Despite that, they were treated the same as the Byzantines for purposes of latinizations.
As for those latinizations being bad, several popes have in fact said so ex cathedra, and it’s a matter of faith, so claiming otherwise publicly is sinful…
It is not that simple. It was the pope that forced many of the changes on the Maronites. He refused the pallium to them until they made certain changes. He sent Jesuit missionaries over who burned Maronite liturgical books and made new ones with ‘updates’. Maybe some of it was self-imposed but that doesn’t explain it all.Actually, the Maronites needed Roman protection from their monophysite and monothelite neighbours, and they began to slowly assimilate Roman Practices on their own to distinguish them from the heretics surrounding them. They did it to themselves, it was not a “latinization.”
How LATINIZED are the Armenians, who have similar vestments, no Iconostasis, etc.
The maronites have a Distinct liturgy, distinct vestments, distinct iconography (where employed) and distinct liturgical language (The anaphoras or at least consecration or always in syriac/Aramaic).
I think if they just refined their church architecture and turned their altars back around they’d be more or less “Free.”
The problem with that is that cross-pollination in the Catholic Church tends to flow one way. It is always the eastern churches which assume western traditions. There is a kind of superiority complex in the Roman Church that says the Roman liturgy is that of Rome, therefore it is superior in all ways. There is no use for eastern concepts. On the other hand if the east holds strictly to their traditions as opposed to submitting to Roman practices they are viewed as insubordinate or factious or contentious or whatever. You won’t see a Roman praying an Akathist to Mary, but it is questioned why the eastern Catholics often don’t pray the Rosary. We should assume the traditions of the west like praying the Rosary or adoration but the akathist is a eastern tradition that shouldn’t be imposed on the west.While desire to be rid of imposed customs is good, I feel that this animosity toward western peculiarities can and does often go too far. This, unfortunately, is to be expected. If a group who was once oppressed becomes free, often times the oppressed group adopt the opposite extreme in some way (it happens with heresies that in a person’s zeal to expunge a heretical idea, they often invent another heresy that denies the first one.) I’m not accusing any side of heresy here, but just giving an example of how things like this go.
I think cross pollination is a good thing and should be encouraged. Think of a Latin church with icons and no musical instruments, chanting the mass (readings and all) but also a byzantine church that has adoration and prays the rosary, for example. In a truly universal church, this would happen naturally, in my opinion.
What is not true? That the Roman Church has a superiority complex? It was a Roman pope that said that since the Roman liturgy was that of Rome therefore it was superior to all the eastern liturgies. I think it was P. Gregory XIV.That is not true. When the second council of Nicea rolled around it was PRIMARILY ROME that defended the practices of iconography and veneration of Icons.
Most of these differences in dress are hold-overs from Ottoman ruler’s dictates (the Indian Churches were not subject to these impositions). The Ottomans would mandate that each church leader dress distinctly, as they viewed these leaders akin to tribal heads. The Syriac Catholics were forbidden to wear the dress of the Syriac Orthodox under Ottoman rule (many times because of Syriac Orthodox complaints)… The Coptic and Ethiopian Catholic heads that I’ve seen have the proper Mitre not the latinized ones.I believe the use of the mitre dates back to the 15th century. Bishops of the Coptic CC have also adopted the mitre, as have the Syro-Malabars. Also, note that Armenian bishops (even the Armenian Apostolics) use a mitre as well, and that practice may date from the 12th century.
It would seem to be merely something to distinguish the Syriac CC from the Syriac OC.
Most of the roman catholics aren’t even aware there are other churches out there in communion with the pope, those who are, as far as I have seen, are eager to point out the current abysmal status of western piety and worship as compared to the east, and are even more eager to utilize eastern piety. For All Saints’ day, we had icons all around the ambo of our church, for instance.The problem with that is that cross-pollination in the Catholic Church tends to flow one way. It is always the eastern churches which assume western traditions. There is a kind of superiority complex in the Roman Church that says the Roman liturgy is that of Rome, therefore it is superior in all ways. There is no use for eastern concepts. On the other hand if the east holds strictly to their traditions as opposed to submitting to Roman practices they are viewed as insubordinate or factious or contentious or whatever. You won’t see a Roman praying an Akathist to Mary, but it is questioned why the eastern Catholics often don’t pray the Rosary. We should assume the traditions of the west like praying the Rosary or adoration but the akathist is a eastern tradition that shouldn’t be imposed on the west.
