So... who are the true bishops?

[Peter_J]

Dear brother Contarini,

I agree with you that overlapping jurisdictions are unjustified. But I am not aware that there is such a thing in the Catholic Church. A Melkite Catholic in a geographical region, for instance, does not have two bishops - the local Latin bishop and the Melkite bishop. Rather, he only has one bishop, the Melkite Catholic bishop.

Unless you can show that any individual Catholic is under more than one proper bishop, then I fail to understand how the Catholic Church can be accused of having “overlapping jurisdictions.”

I disagree, but I know better than to try and argue with you (well, I like to think I do).

 

[Zekariya]

The distinction more or less amounts to “denominationalism” within the Catholic Church. All baptized Christians in a given place should gather around the same altar. That is clear in the Fathers. Anything less than that is a corruption and an abuse. There shouldn’t be any picking and choosing, and there certainly shouldn’t be ethnic divisions, which is essentially what the “sui juris churches” are.

And yes, this applies to the Latin custom of having multiple Masses for the same Sunday/feast day.

Our Father among the Saints, Pope Leo the Great († AD 461) disagrees with you:

Again, that our usage may coincide at all points, we wish this thing also to be observed, viz. that when any of the greater festivals has brought together a larger congregation than usual, and too great a crowd of the faithful has assembled for one church to hold them all at once, there should be no hesitation about repeating the oblation of the sacrifice: lest, if those only are admitted to this service who come first, those who flock in afterwards, should seem to be rejected: for it is fully in accordance with piety and reason, that as often as a fresh congregation has filled the church where service is going on, the sacrifice should be offered as a matter of course. Whereas a certain portion of the people must be deprived of their worship, if the custom of only one celebration be kept, and only those who come early in the day can offer the sacrifice. We admonish you, therefore, beloved, earnestly and affectionately that your carefulness also should not neglect what has become a part of our own usage on the pattern of our fathers’ tradition, so that in all things we may agree together in our beliefs and in our performances.

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.ix.html

And he was an ardent supporter of the Nicene canons.

 

[MorEphrem]

All I will say is while one city, one bishop is ideal I have a two word response: John Ireland. If you can sincerely say he was acting “charitably” or in anyway pastoral, I would say there is an impassable gap between our values.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Contarini,

The distinction more or less amounts to “denominationalism” within the Catholic Church.

I understand you put it in quotes, but, to be concise, denominationalism only exists when there are differences in dogmatic truths between groups. That is certainly not the case between the Catholic Churches.

All baptized Christians in a given place should gather around the same altar.

It sounds more like legalism to me rather than true unity. As Catholics, we are called to be unified in diversity. Your position would force a certain Tradition to worship according to another Tradition, a method that really does not work.

That is clear in the Fathers.

Well, no it’s not, because the Fathers never faced the situation that the modern Church does. People are dramatically more mobile, communication more accessible, and mass immigration more rampant in the 19th century down to this day - a situation the Fathers never faced. The Catholic Church has dealt with it very well (as has the Oriental Orthodox). The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, imo.

Anything less than that is a corruption and an abuse.

Well, we come from two different Traditions. My Oriental Tradition does not see anything wrong with the idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions, and has been of that mindset for several centuries already…

There shouldn’t be any picking and choosing, and there certainly shouldn’t be ethnic divisions, which is essentially what the “sui juris churches” are.

Sui juris Churches are not based on differences in ethnicity, but rather on distinctions in traditions/Traditions.

And yes, this applies to the Latin custom of having multiple Masses for the same Sunday/feast day.

Why stop there? Why do we need different parishes in single city? Shouldn’t the cathedral church suffice canonically? It should suffice to point out, as you might know, that ALL liturgies are one celebration, one Sacrifice, no matter when and where it is celebrated.

I understand why Eastern/Oriental Catholics want these distinctions, given how they’ve been treated historically. I’d be happy if all the Latins became Melkites. But unity is central,

You are free to ask any Catholic Church if they are united to the other Catholic Church down the street. I’ll bet all Catholic Churches will say “we are united in one celebration, in one Sacrifice, in one Church.”

and unity means more than signing the same doctrinal statements or even being in communion with the Pope. It has to do with whether two neighbors worship together on a Sunday or not.

This statement appears to promote what I stated above - forcing a group with a particular Tradition to worship according to that of another Tradition— no option available if you are in one city. It does not sound appealing to me, nor, I gather, to the great majority of posters in the ECF.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Sorry to intrude, guys, but I hope you don’t mind if I add a comment or two.

Contarini;11559282:

All baptized Christians in a given place should gather around the same altar.

It sounds more like legalism to me rather than true unity. As Catholics, we are called to be unified in diversity. Your position would force a certain Tradition to worship according to another Tradition, a method that really does not work.

Contarini;11559282:

That is clear in the Fathers.

Well, no it’s not, because the Fathers never faced the situation that the modern Church does. People are dramatically more mobile, communication more accessible, and mass immigration more rampant in the 19th century down to this day - a situation the Fathers never faced. The Catholic Church has dealt with it very well (as has the Oriental Orthodox). The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, imo.

While all were juridically subject to the local bishop, the traditional “one city, one bishop” paradigm did not involve forcing those of variant ecclesiastical traditions to submit to the local one. Rather, the local bishop was to see to the spiritual welfare of those in his care from other traditions, which often meant “importing” a priest or two to see to their needs.

What mardukm says about mobility of peoples is true, the amount of mobility in ancient times is sometimes surprising. I’ve used this example before in this forum, but we can take the city of Rome as a case in point. Since it was the seat of the Empire, it attracted folks from all over the place. So, e.g, Egyptians of the Alexandrene Tradition living in Rome would have been tended by one of their own. And of course it worked vice-versa too, wherein Romans in Byzantium, e.g, would equally have been tended by one of their own. So no, it really wasn’t “one bishop, one table” or anything of the sort.

Contarini;11559282:

Anything less than that is a corruption and an abuse.

Well, we come from two different Traditions. My Oriental Tradition does not see anything wrong with the idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions, and has been of that mindset for several centuries already…

I’m really not sure what you mean here, Marduk.

Contarini;11559282:

There shouldn’t be any picking and choosing, and there certainly

shouldn’t be ethnic divisions, which is essentially what the “sui juris churches” are.

Sui juris Churches are not based on differences in ethnicity, but rather on distinctions in traditions/Traditions.

Indeed, and I think it bears underscoring that it’s essentially the same differentiation which exists within Orthodoxy, Oriental or Eastern.

 

[dzheremi]

While all were juridically subject to the local bishop, the traditional “one city, one bishop” paradigm did not involve forcing those of variant ecclesiastical traditions to submit to the local one. Rather, the local bishop was to see to the spiritual welfare of those in his care from other traditions, which often meant “importing” a priest or two to see to their needs.

Hmmm…reminds me slightly of pre-autocephaly Ethiopia, where of course in terms of numbers and ecclesiastical structure it is more accurate to say that the Egyptians imported bishops, rather than priests. I suppose that was taking this ‘ecclesiastical territory’ business very seriously, but I don’t think anyone would deny that it has ultimately been a good thing. Maybe someday the OO churches will have convert bishops like the OCA does… I could defnitely see it in places where the overwhelming majority of the church’s population is native/non-X, like the COC in Bolivia (where there are no ethnic Copts aside from the priests and bishop). And I guess now that is already the case with the new Syriac Orthodox in Guatemala under HG Bishop Edward…though I haven’t heard anything more about that group since their initial reception. Surely they have more important things to worry about, like regularizing their liturgy and associated practices.

What mardukm says about mobility of peoples is true, the amount of mobility in ancient times is sometimes surprising. I’ve used this example before in this forum, but we can take the city of Rome as a case in point. Since it was the seat of the Empire, it attracted folks from all over the place. So, e.g, Egyptians of the Alexandrene Tradition living in Rome would have been tended by one of their own.

And of course it worked vice-versa too, wherein Romans in Byzantium, e.g, would equally have been tended by one of their own. So no, it really wasn’t “one bishop, one table” or anything of the sort.

I wonder how this affected the Romans in non-Hellenized portions of Egypt and Syria. Of course there were Romans among the Desert Fathers, though I imagine the rules for them would probably be different. Still…I can’t help but wonder. (I want my Coptic chant in Latin, dang it! )

 

[Zekariya]

Cities in the old days were usually a lot smaller than modern cities. Could you imaging having one Catholic parish in all of NY City and only one Divine Liturgy for all of the people? Even in ancient times there were more than one Church building in big cities such as Rome and Constantinople. The important thing was that they shared the same Faith and participated in the eternal Sacrifice of Christ on the altar: the Eucharist. When I attend the Divine Liturgy, I am participating with all Christians, the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, because the Sacrifice is outside of time. I am in Communion with all of the Saints and they participate with us because the Sacrifice is an eternal Sacrifice and we are united in the one Body of Christ.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother malphono,

Sorry to intrude, guys, but I hope you don’t mind if I add a comment or two.

No intrusion at all brother. Your comments are always welcome!

I’m really not sure what you mean here, Marduk.

Well to start off, though you most likely do not need the explanation, I’d like to explain the distinction between “personal jurisdiction” and “territorial jurisdiction” for others who may not be familiar with the terms – simply put, “personal jurisdiction” refers to jurisdiction over persons, not jurisdiction over territory. Every territorial jurisdiction is personal, but not all personal jurisdictions are territorial.

This principle has been practiced in the OO communion for several centuries now. For example (among others), in Egypt, the Syriac Orthodox are under the omophor of an exarch, not the local Coptic bishop. So it is not strange, but rather acceptable, to me as an Oriental that there might be Catholics under the omophor of, say, a Maronite bishop in a particular locale, instead of the local territorial Latin bishop. The Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches have adapted to the reality of different Traditions within one communion. I gather it is a rather different experience among the Eastern Orthodox communion of Churches wherein there is - for the most part - only one Eastern/Byzantine Tradition, with minor liturgical and praxis differences between groups.

I also think that the reality is still relatively new in the Catholic communion of Churches (I mean, compared to the OO experience), especially with respect to the Latin territories, so there might be Latin Christians (perhaps, brother Contarini is evidence of this) who would prefer that everyone in a certain locale be under the omophor of the same bishop.

Indeed, and I think it bears underscoring that it’s essentially the same differentiation which exists within Orthodoxy, Oriental or Eastern.

I’m not inclined to agree with respect to many (not all) of the individual Slavic Eastern Orthodox patriarchal jurisdictions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Well said!

Cities in the old days were usually a lot smaller than modern cities. Could you imaging having one Catholic parish in all of NY City and only one Divine Liturgy for all of the people? Even in ancient times there were more than one Church building in big cities such as Rome and Constantinople. The important thing was that they shared the same Faith and participated in the eternal Sacrifice of Christ on the altar: the Eucharist. When I attend the Divine Liturgy, I am participating with all Christians, the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, because the Sacrifice is outside of time. I am in Communion with all of the Saints and they participate with us because the Sacrifice is an eternal Sacrifice and we are united in the one Body of Christ.

 

[malphono]

Well to start off, though you most likely do not need the explanation, I’d like to explain the distinction between “personal jurisdiction” and “territorial jurisdiction” for others who may not be familiar with the terms – simply put, “personal jurisdiction” refers to jurisdiction over persons, not jurisdiction over territory. Every territorial jurisdiction is personal, but not all personal jurisdictions are territorial.

This principle has been practiced in the OO communion for several centuries now. For example (among others), in Egypt, the Syriac Orthodox are under the omophor of an exarch, not the local Coptic bishop. So it is not strange, but rather acceptable, to me as an Oriental that there might be Catholics under the omophor of, say, a Maronite bishop in a particular locale, instead of the local territorial Latin bishop. The Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches have adapted to the reality of different Traditions within one communion. I gather it is a rather different experience among the Eastern Orthodox communion of Churches wherein there is - for the most part - only one Eastern/Byzantine Tradition, with minor liturgical and praxis differences between groups.

Yes, OK, but the example of the SOC exarch vs the local COC bishop doesn’t work at all. Unless I’m missing something, it’s the exact opposite.

I also think that the reality is still relatively new in the Catholic communion of Churches (I mean, compared to the OO experience), especially with respect to the Latin territories, so there might be Latin Christians (perhaps, brother Contarini is evidence of this) who would prefer that everyone in a certain locale be under the omophor of the same bishop.

But isn’t that exactly what we had in the US prior to Rome’s establishment of “personal” jurisdictions for the Orient and East? In any case, being under the omophor of a local bishop does not, as I mentioned earlier, mean that they’re forced to adopt the rite of the local bishop.

I’m not inclined to agree with respect to many (not all) of the individual Slavic Eastern Orthodox patriarchal jurisdictions.

Now, how can you disagree when I was agreeing with you. I really don’t see what the fake MP-inspired “national patriarchates” have to do with anything other than MP-inspired politics. The various Churches in union with Rome are mirrors of same absent the fake patriarchates.

 

[neokarny]

the Greek patriarchate in Antioch are abolished upon unification. They’re about as analogous to the creation of a Syriac patriarchate in Rome or an Armenian patriarchate in Constantinople.

How do you figure this? The Melkite Patriarchate was originally just the imperial-aligned (hence “Melkite”) Church of Antioch that gradually adopted the Byzantine Rite over a couple centuries (10th-12th or so), considerably some time after the solidification of the divisions after Chalcedon. Even if the departure from the Syriac Rite was regretful at best, I don’t see how you’re saying it’s at all the same as the Latin Patriarchates and a “false contender.”

Do note that I’m not arguing for the opposite.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, OK, but the example of the SOC exarch vs the local COC bishop doesn’t work at all. Unless I’m missing something, it’s the exact opposite.

Could you elaborate a bit? I’m afraid I’ve lost the thread of what you 2 are talking about.

 

[achmafooma]

Hi achmafooma. You have an interesting take on it, although I’m not sure if I understand it. Does this mean that you’re equally sympathetic towards someone moving from Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy and someone moving from Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism?

Hello, Peter. My apologies for the delay responding to this (I dropped off the forums for a couple of days due to other commitments). Don’t worry about not understanding me. Sometimes I’m not sure I understand myself .

Personally, I have come to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church and I believe that she represents the ‘fullness’ of the Christian faith – which includes the papacy. But, in my journey to the Catholic faith (having been raised in the United Methodist Church), it took me some time to come to this conclusion. I had narrowed my search (with, I believe, the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and then felt a call from that point to the Catholic Church specifically.

The real answer to your question is difficult. I am torn between the fact that I recognize (as does the Catholic Church) that the Orthodox Churches are true churches, and that they possess all seven sacraments…but also that I believe that the hierarchical unity under the Bishop of Rome, which we see in the Catholic Church, is also an important element of the faith. So in truth, I must confess that I would probably be more sympathetic to somebody making an Orthodox-to-Catholic move vs. the opposite. But I would not try to proactively convince an Orthodox friend to convert, since I see no need to try and ‘save’ somebody from one true church by bringing them to another one…although I would help facilitate that move if somebody asked me to.

Although I would not really ‘support’ somebody converting Catholic-to-Orthodox, it would be just about the least concerning way somebody could ‘fall away’ from Catholicism from my perspective (if that makes sense). In other words, I would be *much *less concerned about a friend or loved one making a Catholic-to-Orthodox move than I would be about one making a Catholic-to-[enter other Christian denomination name here] move, or worse a Catholic-to-non-Christian move, or even worse a Catholic-to-atheism move. Among all of the ways that a Catholic could leave the church, becoming Orthodox is really only one where they still end up somewhere that can offer them the sacraments.

When it comes to our separated brethren in Christian bodies that do not have the sacraments, I would personally count a person’s conversion to Orthodoxy pretty much on-par with conversion to Catholicism…because, in either case, that person is becoming one with a true Christian Church and will have access to the seven sacraments, which are a great help on our journey as individual Christians. If a Protestant friend or family member told me they were becoming Orthodox, I would be extremely joyful about it…only very slightly less so than if they were becoming Catholic.

Of course, with all of this said, I long for the day when all Christians will be fully united with one another in ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church.’ And I really believe that it can happen, at least between Catholic and Orthodox, sooner than we might imagine…which will make any discussion about Orthodox-to-Catholic and Catholic-to-Orthodox a moot point .

God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you, achmafooma, that was a great post.

As I’ve told others, I wouldn’t encourage someone to switch from Orthodox to Catholicism; but if someone who is neither Orthodox nor Catholic is debating which of the two to join, I haven’t any problem “nudging” him/her toward the latter.

Of course, with all of this said, I long for the day when all Christians will be fully united with one another in ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church.’ And I really believe that it can happen, at least between Catholic and Orthodox, sooner than we might imagine…which will make any discussion about Orthodox-to-Catholic and Catholic-to-Orthodox a moot point .

God bless!

Well, I can imagine quite a bit, so … yeah maybe.

 

[mardukm]

Could you elaborate a bit? I’m afraid I’ve lost the thread of what you 2 are talking about.

Yeah, I’m afraid that comment lost me too.

The SOC exarch has personal jurisdiction over the Syriac Orthodox in Egypt, though he has no territorial jurisdiction in Egypt. I see that as comparable to the situation with the personal jurisdiction of Oriental and Eastern hierarchs among their own within the territorial jurisdiction of the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Peter J;11565305:

Could you elaborate a bit? I’m afraid I’ve lost the thread of what you 2 are talking about.

Yeah, I’m afraid that comment lost me too.

The SOC exarch has personal jurisdiction over the Syriac Orthodox in Egypt, though he has no territorial jurisdiction in Egypt. I see that as comparable to the situation with the personal jurisdiction of Oriental and Eastern hierarchs among their own within the territorial jurisdiction of the Latins.

Sorry but it looks like I may have misread the example. Happens from time to time.

 

[Josephene]

’ I never heard my parents argue ; they were always at peace ’ - words of St.Bernadette , as reported here -

ewtn.com/library/mary/bernlife.htm

Interesting that , it is someone from such a background that The Lord uses , to bring us more light about the Immaculate Conception …the Dogma of which was proclaimed, seemingly in Divine Providence , 800 years , after the so called Great Schism of 1054 - as though , a gift of heaven, to start a new age of blessings …like the other 8s that also speak to us of blessings , such as the 8th day of the Lord’s birth and His naming …the Sunday Sabbat celebrations …the Octave of Easter , now Divine Mercy Sunday …

Interestingly too , Bernadette’s father was a miller …as though The Lord wanted to put a stop , to having His children being milletised by we know who … and to think , that use of leavend bread , was a major cause of the split - again , the connection to flour and mill and Immaculate nature of unleaven !

The apparitions start , in 1858; there are 18 of them , last on July 16 ( 8x2 ! )

Could it be that , trusting in this seemingly easy to believe in Dogma would make it far easier to follow the rest of the path to peaceful relationship /unity , esp. in areas where such is sorley needed … such as Iraq and places in the East , where the 3 kings are said to have come from , as well as in millions of lives / relationships, that have been torn apart, from refusal to take in the truth of dignity of life, from conception on !

’ ‘They went back to their country by another route’ - would it not be that , the teachings and the dogmas are to help , in such a demiilletised path back to the time of harmony which has been our true country of origin !

May the leaders and parental figures in the Churches and homes , be blessed to bring that peace home , to their lands and peoples !

Mary,concieved without sin, pray for us !

Peace !

 

[Contarini]

Cities in the old days were usually a lot smaller than modern cities. Could you imaging having one Catholic parish in all of NY City and only one Divine Liturgy for all of the people?

Of course not–even in St. Ignatius’ Antioch or for that matter St. Paul’s Corinth, there seem to have been multiple gatherings, foreshadowing the current parish/diocese distinction.

That’s a straw man. The point is that all believers in one place should worship together. One place might in some cases be a small town, or a city with very few Christians. Or it might be a neighborhood of a few blocks. The bottom line is that you shouldn’t be passing by one church in order to worship at another one because you like the style better or the other one has people of your ethnicity or some other such reason. If you have a trivial reason, you are putting your personal predilections above the Body of Christ. And if you have a substantive reason, then the Church is no longer unified.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Dear brother Contarini,

I understand you put it in quotes, but, to be concise, denominationalism only exists when there are differences in dogmatic truths between groups

No, that just isn’t true. That’s typical Catholic ignorance of Protestant denominations. Most Protestant denominations do not consider other denominations to be in dogmatic error. They have different theological traditions, different styles of worship, different ethnic identities, different organizational structures, and so on, so they remain separate. Catholics look at that and say, “Disunity! Horrible! Join the One True Church! Where incidentally we have 22 sui juris churches. Isn’t our diversity awesome?”

This is not to deny that Protestants lack a way of resolving genuine doctrinal differences when they arise, and that this has a lot to do with the proliferation of denominations, particularly in the past. But there are lots and lots of cases where two Protestant denominations have no substantive differences but maintain separate organizations because that’s how they’re used to doing things and they find it more convenient that way.

So I stand by my comparison.

It sounds more like legalism to me rather than true unity.

“Legalism” is just a pejorative term for a principle someone else has of which you don’t see the point. In this case I share the principle with the Fathers, so I don’t think it’s legalism.

If you can’t worship regularly with your neighbor because he/she has a different “Tradition” than you, then you aren’t unified.

As Catholics, we are called to be unified in diversity. Your position would force a certain Tradition to worship according to another Tradition, a method that really does not work.

It worked fine in the early Church. Contra your claim below, ancient Christians were quite mobile and there are lots of records of them moving from one city to another. When St. Monica moved from North Africa to Milan, she asked St. Ambrose how to deal with the liturgical differences between the two traditions, and St. Ambrose told her that his custom was to conform to the local usages of whatever church he was visiting. That’s unity in diversity. Walling Christians off from each other into separate “Traditions” because you can’t trust them to live together in peace as one community, respecting each other’s customs–that’s just disunity.

Well, no it’s not, because the Fathers never faced the situation that the modern Church does. People are dramatically more mobile, communication more accessible, and mass immigration more rampant in the 19th century down to this day - a situation the Fathers never faced. The Catholic Church has dealt with it very well

No, the Catholic Church has dealt with it terribly.

The first Catholics–indeed, pretty much the first Europeans, barring a few French traders–to settle in the town where I now live were Germans. They built a beautiful German church and conducted all their parish business (except for Mass, of course–this was the 19th century) in German. When the Irish and other English-speakers moved to town, they found themselves unwelcome. So they built a great big red-brick Romanesque basilica about two blocks away. And the two parishes remain separate to this day, although the ethnic rivalries have now faded and I believe there’s some talk of merging the parishes when the current elderly pastors retire or die (the pastor of the “Irish” parish, St. Mary’s, actually grew up in the “German” parish, which I admit is a sign of unity).

It’s not unity for Christians to have to build a new church because the people in the existing Catholic church don’t make them welcome. If the Church doesn’t break down ethnic rivalries and create one community, then St. Paul’s preaching is in vain and we might as well toss out the New Testament. This is the heart of the Gospel–Christ has not only reconciled us to God but to each other. Separating Christians by ethnicity or by other matters of custom and human tradition is not innocuous, and protesting against it is not legalism.

 

[Contarini]

Sui juris Churches are not based on differences in ethnicity, but rather on distinctions in traditions/Traditions.

Can there be more than one “Tradition” as opposed to traditions? Isn’t there just one–the faith once delivered to the saints? Isn’t that the one thing that matters? Not to say that particularities of custom aren’t important too. I’m not arguing for the abolition of diversity. I’m saying that the measures that minority Christians have had to take to avoid their wonderful traditions being swallowed up by an imperialistic Roman tradition testify to a deep wound in the unity of the Church. I’m saying that this situation is not healthy or normal or innocuous, and it needs to be resolved, not maintained as a wonderful expression of diversity. There are much better ways to express diversity.

As for the sui juris churches not being based on ethnicity: so you’re telling me that their ethnic composition is just accidental? Please. These different traditions grew up in different cultures and are shaped by those cultures. They’re ethnic through and through. Putting them above the unity of the Church is denying the words of St. Paul that we are united in one Body.

Why stop there? Why do we need different parishes in single city?

Because in most cities there are too many Christians to worship together conveniently in one place. Hence the parish system, which still has Christians in one place worshiping together.

Of course there are all kinds of exceptions and complications to the principle. But you don’t seem to accept the principle in the first place.

It should suffice to point out, as you might know, that ALL liturgies are one celebration, one Sacrifice, no matter when and where it is celebrated.

Indeed. And that suffices to express the unity that Christians at different times and places have with each other. But it’s not an excuse for Christians who live next to each other walking away from each other on Sunday morning and worshiping separately under the excuse that they have spiritual unity. I’ve heard that song before in Protestant denominationalism.

You are free to ask any Catholic Church if they are united to the other Catholic Church down the street. I’ll bet all Catholic Churches will say “we are united in one celebration, in one Sacrifice, in one Church.”

Yes, and evangelical Protestants typically say that they are united too–the more ecumenical ones even claim to be united to Catholics. And this verbal expression of spiritual unity exempts them in their own eyes, from doing the difficult work of living and worshiping together with people who are different from themselves. The people who like hymns go to one church (or one service within the same congregation) and the people who like praise choruses go to another. Problem solved–but the unity of the Church has been abandoned.

It’s not about what you say. It’s about what you do, and especially about how and with whom you worship.

This statement appears to promote what I stated above - forcing a group with a particular Tradition to worship according to that of another Tradition— no option available if you are in one city. It does not sound appealing to me, nor, I gather, to the great majority of posters in the ECF.

Lots of things about the Faith don’t sound appealing to a lot of people. The question is whether they are true.

I’m not saying that there should be only one rite in one city. There have, as I said, always been different worshiping communities in large cities. I’m saying that if you find yourself in a situation where the local community (and since I’m not being legalistic about this I’m not interested in defining it more specifically) has traditions different from the ones you are used to, you don’t pass by that local community and go find a more distant one that is more familiar, and you certainly don’t start a new parish to enshrine the traditions you’re familiar with. You bring your traditions into the local community and learn from those that are already present there. That’s unity in diversity.

Edwin