Vatican II and the Eastern Catholic Churches - How Was Life Different For Eastern Catholics Before Vatican II?

[TrueLight]

I have read numerous comments on how Vatican II and Blessed John Paul II has helped Eastern Catholics. I have even seen some wariness of the Church becoming more traditional because of a fear of Pre Vatican II attitudes.

I’m afraid I am totally ignorant of the state of things for Eastern Catholics before Vatican II.

How did other Popes treat Eastern Catholics?

How does Vatican II help, aside from encouraging EC’s faithfulness to their Eastern traditions? I think I understand that part.

Also, since EC’s are traditional, why does there seem to be a prevalence of EC’s who are against the traditionalist position? Is it because the traditionalist viewpoint caused a lot of issues for ECs/ the Orthodox, before Vatican II?

Any links or books would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

How did other Popes treat Eastern Catholics?

Some were nice, some were not. Pius X was not so nice for example.

How does Vatican II help, aside from encouraging EC’s faithfulness to their Eastern traditions? I think I understand that part.

More room for Ecumenism with the Orthodox and more room for their traditions, reversal of latinisations.

Also, since EC’s are traditional, why does there seem to be a prevalence of EC’s who are against the traditionalist position?

Because “traditionals” are very often Latin Triumphalists who insult easterners for not having or liking their devotions (such as the Sacred Heart) or having different views and theologies, such as hesychasm. Traditionalists tend to be (neo-)ultramontanists as well, while the easterns focus more on collegiality of the bishops, this sometimes causes some friction.

Again, I’m not EC but that’s what I see.

 

[TrueLight]

Some were nice, some were not. Pius X was not so nice for example.

Can you go a little more into this?

Because “traditionals” are very often Latin Triumphalists who insult easterners for not having or liking their devotions (such as the Sacred Heart) or having different views and theologies, such as hesychasm. Traditionalists tend to be (neo-)ultramontanists as well, while the easterns focus more on collegiality of the bishops, this sometimes causes some friction.

I had to look up hesychasm. Can you give some examples of folks historically being against that?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Can you go a little more into this?

Here.

I had to look up hesychasm. Can you give some examples of folks historically being against that?

Adrian Fortescue, the Latin scholar who wrote books on the east is one of the examples. See his article in the Catholic Encyclopedia for example. Hesychasm (Palamism) is in direct opposition to Scholasticism like that of St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[TrueLight]

Here.

Thanks. I updated my post.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Thanks. I updated my post.

And so I updated mine.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Because “traditionals” are very often Latin Triumphalists who insult easterners for not having or liking their devotions (such as the Sacred Heart) or having different views and theologies, such as hesychasm. Traditionalists tend to be (neo-)ultramontanists as well, while the easterns focus more on collegiality of the bishops, this sometimes causes some friction.

Exactly.

 

[TrueLight]

Can we please keep this thread relatively free of polemics?

Thank you.

If anyone else has any insights on specific things that occurred, it would be helpful. If this is going to turn into a traditionalist bashing thread, then I will ask the moderator to close it.

 

[jam070406]

Because “traditionals” are very often Latin Triumphalists who insult easterners for not having or liking their devotions (such as the Sacred Heart) or having different views and theologies, such as hesychasm. Traditionalists tend to be (neo-)ultramontanists as well, while the easterns focus more on collegiality of the bishops, this sometimes causes some friction.

This goes both ways from what I have seen. Traditional Catholics view Eastern Catholics being more sympathetic to the Orthodox, who hurl polemics at Latin devotions and spirituality. Both side are passionate. I believe the Eastern Catholics are stuck in the middle.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Some were nice, some were not. Pius X was not so nice for example.

Pius IX was another who was not very kindly disposed to Eastern Catholics. There is a famous story of some conflict he had with the Melkite Patriarch of his day. It doesn’t really bear repeating here though, as most people tend to discredit it since it is an “oral tradition” rather than something that was written down immediately (unless the story exists somewhere in an old Arabic text).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

More room for Ecumenism with the Orthodox and more room for their traditions, reversal of latinisations.

Ecumenism with the Orthodox would be the bigger issue here. There had been strong pushes from Rome/Popes for the Eastern Churches to restore their authentic (un-Latinized) traditions long before Vatican II.

The biggest thing that Vatican II did directly for the Eastern Catholic Churches was to recognize that they are, indeed, Churches and not just “rites” of the Roman Church. As I’ve heard one priest/scholar say, “A rite belongs to a Church, not the other way around.”

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Can we please keep this thread relatively free of polemics?

Thank you.

If anyone else has any insights on specific things that occurred, it would be helpful. If this is going to turn into a traditionalist bashing thread, then I will ask the moderator to close it.

Who’s being polemical?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Can we please keep this thread relatively free of polemics?

Thank you.

If anyone else has any insights on specific things that occurred, it would be helpful. If this is going to turn into a traditionalist bashing thread, then I will ask the moderator to close it.

Indeed. It would be nice if this thread was kept free of polemics. Sadly, however, there has been a great deal of conflict between “traditionalist” Roman Catholics and certain Eastern Catholic groups. The SSPX’s support of the Society of St. Josephat is very much a sore point for some Eastern Catholic groups, and rightly so.

That being said, there are a great number of “traditionalist” Roman Catholics who have a very high respect and admiration for the Eastern Catholic traditions. I know of one priest in the FSSP who used to celebrate an Akathist to the Mother of God from time to time in the parish that my mom and dad used to attend. He was very supportive and had some great things to say to me about the Christian East at my mother’s funeral.

 

[jam070406]

Here.

Adrian Fortescue, the Latin scholar who wrote books on the east is one of the examples. See his article in the Catholic Encyclopedia for example. Hesychasm (Palamism) is in direct opposition to Scholasticism like that of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Ugh… that link was painful to read.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Ugh… that link was painful to read.

I know, the numbers are almost unbelievable, Pius’ measures even more so

 

[Hesychios]

I have read numerous comments on how Vatican II and Blessed John Paul II has helped Eastern Catholics. I have even seen some wariness of the Church becoming more traditional because of a fear of Pre Vatican II attitudes.

I’m afraid I am totally ignorant of the state of things for Eastern Catholics before Vatican II.

How did other Popes treat Eastern Catholics?

How does Vatican II help, aside from encouraging EC’s faithfulness to their Eastern traditions? I think I understand that part.

Also, since EC’s are traditional, why does there seem to be a prevalence of EC’s who are against the traditionalist position? Is it because the traditionalist viewpoint caused a lot of issues for ECs/ the Orthodox, before Vatican II?

Any links or books would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Vatican II was a watershed of openness and sympathy for the eastern rites (as they were known at the time). The voices and opinions of the Eastern Catholic participants, especially the Melkite patriarch, were heard as if for the first time, and some of their suggestions were taken seriously.

It was also the time when Cardinal Slipyj was released from the Gulags, and he was something of a happy media event. The church was beginning to see itself as something more than the Latin rite with subsidiaries. I once had a set of vinyl recordings of the many liturgies celebrated during the Council, I think there were six including the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic and the Byzantine-Slavonic. The Fathers of the Council really expressed a lot of respect for this diversity (and perhaps a bit of regret that things had not gone so well in the past). Cardinal Montini was himself from Milan, where the Ambrosian rite was originally native (actually all of north Italy, but reduced to a few parishes in Milan by that time).

One result was the issuance of Orientalium Ecclesiarum (the decree on the Eastern Churches) which was a landmark document for it’s time. Every Eastern Catholic should read it. Then Pope Paul VI met with patriarch Athenagoras (I think before the Council completed) and the very important mutual lifting of the anathemas which followed made dialog with the Orthodox possible.

When Eastern Christians think of the Spirit of Vatican II, these are the things they will think of most of all, and almost no one would want to turn the clock back on it.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Vatican II was a watershed of openness and sympathy for the eastern rites (as they were known at the time). The voices and opinions of the Eastern Catholic participants, especially the Melkite patriarch, were heard as if for the first time, and some of their suggestions were taken seriously.

It was also the time when Cardinal Slipyj was released from the Gulags, and he was something of a happy media event. The church was beginning to see itself as something more than the Latin rite with subsidiaries. I once had a set of vinyl recordings of the many liturgies celebrated during the Council, I think there were six including the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic and the Byzantine-Slavonic. The Fathers of the Council really expressed a lot of respect for this diversity (and perhaps a bit of regret that things had not gone so well in the past). Cardinal Montini was himself from Milan, where the Ambrosian rite was originally native (actually all of north Italy, but reduced to a few parishes in Milan by that time).

One result was the issuance of Orientalium Ecclesiarum (the decree on the Eastern Churches) which was a landmark document for it’s time. Every Eastern Catholic should read it. Then the very important mutual lifting of the anathemas made dialog with the Orthodox possible.

When Eastern Christians think of the Spirit of Vatican II, these are the things they will think of most of all, and almost no one would want to turn the clock back on it.

One big “Amen!” here.

 

[jam070406]

I know, the numbers are almost unbelievable, Pius’ measures even more so

Yeah, it certainly doesn’t do much to soften the image the Orthodox have on the Papacy does it? Also with it coming so shortly after 1870.

 

[TrueLight]

Indeed. It would be nice if this thread was kept free of polemics. Sadly, however, there has been a great deal of conflict between “traditionalist” Roman Catholics and certain Eastern Catholic groups. The SSPX’s support of the Society of St. Josephat is very much a sore point for some Eastern Catholic groups, and rightly so.

What’s the issue there in a nutshell if you don’t mind? I’m not familiar with it.

That being said, there are a great number of “traditionalist” Roman Catholics who have a very high respect and admiration for the Eastern Catholic traditions. I know of one priest in the FSSP who used to celebrate an Akathist to the Mother of God from time to time in the parish that my mom and dad used to attend. He was very supportive and had some great things to say to me about the Christian East at my mother’s funeral.

I know quite a few who attend DLs occasionally.

 

[TrueLight]

Vatican II was a watershed of openness and sympathy for the eastern rites (as they were known at the time). The voices and opinions of the Eastern Catholic participants, especially the Melkite patriarch, were heard as if for the first time, and some of their suggestions were taken seriously.

It was also the time when Cardinal Slipyj was released from the Gulags, and he was something of a happy media event. The church was beginning to see itself as something more than the Latin rite with subsidiaries. I once had a set of vinyl recordings of the many liturgies celebrated during the Council, I think there were six including the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic and the Byzantine-Slavonic. The Fathers of the Council really expressed a lot of respect for this diversity (and perhaps a bit of regret that things had not gone so well in the past). Cardinal Montini was himself from Milan, where the Ambrosian rite was originally native (actually all of north Italy, but reduced to a few parishes in Milan by that time).

One result was the issuance of Orientalium Ecclesiarum (the decree on the Eastern Churches) which was a landmark document for it’s time. Every Eastern Catholic should read it. Then Pope Paul VI met with patriarch Athenagoras (I think before the Council completed) and the very important mutual lifting of the anathemas which followed made dialog with the Orthodox possible.

When Eastern Christians think of the Spirit of Vatican II, these are the things they will think of most of all, and almost no one would want to turn the clock back on it.

Ah I see. I just read it. Thanks.

Now does anyone have a link to the English translation of Ea Semper? I can’t seem to find it.