Question about Rome and the East

  • Thread starter Thread starter kevjminn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kevjminn

Guest
I’m admittedly not as learned as a lot of others on here as far as church history goes.

Has there ever been an instance where the roman bishop has tried to force the east “as a whole” to adopt latin liturgical practices? If this question is too much for a discussion board, could someone point me in the right direction for some info on the subject?

Thanks in advance!😃

kevjminn
 
I think there was the document Cum Data Fuerit which forbade married priests in the US.
 
To my knowledge, no. It was more like various bishops (along with other circumstances) Latinized some of the Eastern Churches. I’ve never heard the Vatican saying “YOU MUST ADOPT LATIN PRAXIS!” Quite the opposite, actually.
 
kevjminn said:
I’m admittedly not as learned as a lot of others on here as far as church history goes.

Has there ever been an instance where the roman bishop has tried to force the east “as a whole” to adopt latin liturgical practices? If this question is too much for a discussion board, could someone point me in the right direction for some info on the subject?

Thanks in advance!😃

kevjminn
Click to expand...
There were changes of an existing rite, for example the Syro-Malabar Church (India) needed to make changes when coming into communion.

The original conception governing ritual membership was generally along national or patriarchal jurisdiction. The observance of the paterna traditio has been practiced since ancient times. The acceptance of rite was generally accepted as part of national and ancestral heritage.

Second decree: The Clemetine Instruction (1595) - the first prescriptin for determinationof rite: children follow the rite of their father, or of Latin parent (in a mixed marriage).

Third decree: The Ruthenian Synod of Zamosc (1720) - Latin child baptised in necessity or with permission by a Ruthenian Catholic priest in Poland is ascribed to the Latin Church.

Ritual membership implies being subject to hierarchy so norms for Baptism were eventually established. Pope Benedict XIV (early 18th cen.) established legal norms for rite of Baptism for Italo-Greeks, also for defections from the Greek Melkite. It was Pope Leo XIII (Orientalium dignitas, 1984) and Pope Pius X (Tradita ab antiquis, 1912) that allowed interritual freedom in reception of Holy Communion and Penance.

Armenian Synod 1911: children follow rite of father, even when baptised in a different rite.

See: The determination of rite, an historical and jurical study by William W. Bassett
 
Dear brother Kev,
kevjminn said:
I’m admittedly not as learned as a lot of others on here as far as church history goes.

Has there ever been an instance where the roman bishop has tried to force the east “as a whole” to adopt latin liturgical practices? If this question is too much for a discussion board, could someone point me in the right direction for some info on the subject?

Thanks in advance!😃
Click to expand...
Brothers ThatoneGuy and Vico have provided the correct answers.

The matter of the Liturgy has ALWAYS been in the hands of the local bishop, moderated by LOCAL collegial authority (whether a synod or episcopal conference). So the dispute has always been between LOCAL authorities, and no wholesale enforcement of Latinizations has ever been effected by the bishop of Rome in his role as supreme bishop of the Church universal.

It is true that from the Oriental (not Eastern) perspective, this may have been the case. Upon joining the Catholic Communion, Orientals were required to remove certain texts in their Liturgy that appeared to support the Monophysite heresy. But no Eastern has a right to use this against the Papacy, for the Easterns were always “guilty” of the same thing in relation to the Orientals.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top