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

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TrueLight said:
What’s the issue there in a nutshell if you don’t mind? I’m not familiar with it.
Click to expand...
The FSJ is a group that was excommunicated by the former Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarch, +Lubomyr Hussar. In part their excommunication was because they cleaved to heavily Latinized rituals that hardly reflected even a moderately Latinized Byzantine rite. Upon excommunication they were welcomed by the SSPX.

I’m sure the story is actually much more complex than all that, but I don’t really have time to delve into it any further. 😉
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
The FSJ is a group that was excommunicated by the former Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarch, +Lubomyr Hussar. In part their excommunication was because they cleaved to heavily Latinized rituals that hardly reflected even a moderately Latinized Byzantine rite. Upon excommunication they were welcomed by the SSPX.

I’m sure the story is actually much more complex than all that, but I don’t really have time to delve into it any further. 😉
Click to expand...
Thanks. I can understand why that would be upsetting.

So what was it like to be an Eastern Catholic, say in 1950?
 
TrueLight said:
So what was it like to be an Eastern Catholic, say in 1950?
Click to expand...
I can only speculate as I wasn’t born for another 35 years. 😛 I’d imagine it depended on the area that you lived in. For Eastern Catholics that lived on the Eastern/Western European fault line (i.e. on the boarder of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) life could be quite difficult. They were generally mistrusted by both their Roman brethren and their Orthodox Mother Churches. In areas where they tried to “prove” their Catholicity by adopting certain Latin customs, they were typically persecuted by their Orthodox counterparts. In other areas where they tried to be fully “Eastern” while also being Catholic, they were persecuted by their Roman brethren. I remember reading that many Eastern Catholics were actually put to death by Polish Roman Catholics who suspected them of being Bolsheviks and “Russophiles” since they clung to their Orthodox heritage. I remember also reading about Orthodox putting Eastern Catholics to death, clinging to various Latinizations as standards of their unwillingness to give up communion with Rome. The whole history of the Eastern Catholics in Slavic countries is very sad on this point.

The Melkites in their home Middle Eastern countries also suffered a great deal of persecution, but primarily at the hands of their Orthodox counterpart. I don’t know that any one Melkite was put to death, but there was certainly a great deal of suppression and imprisonment.

Other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches have their own stories to tell, and I am sadly not so familiar with said stories. I do know that certain Oriental Catholic Churches actually have their own versions of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass that exist alongside the more traditional liturgies of their particular Church. The Ethiopian/Ge’ez Catholics, I believe, are one such Church. To my knowledge - and I am open to correction here - the Roman form of the Mass was imposed on them by rather uninformed missionaries who mistrusted the traditional liturgical rites of the country they were “evangelizing” (as though those lands were not already evangelized).

Today, sadly, not too much has changed. Although Eastern Catholics are no longer being killed and/or imprisoned by their Roman brethren, we are still highly misunderstood, often mistrusted, and our loyalties frequently called into question by well-meaning, but generally ill-informed Latin Catholics. I personally believe that this, in part, has contributed greatly to the slow process of de-Latinization not only in externals, but also the de-Latinization of the mind (i.e. the shedding of Thomistic/neo-Thomistic and Scholastic/neo-Scholastic theology in favor of our own theological approach, as well as a full embracing of our own spiritual and canonical traditions). HOWEVER, knowledge of Eastern Catholicism is on the rise among Roman Catholics, and I’ve encountered much more openness to learning about the Eastern traditions among our Latin brethren. There is less of a tendency to “correct” what we have to say, and more of a tendency to listen and learn than I believe existed in the past.

So as with anything in the Church, nothing is perfect, but we’re still working on it together and we’ve made great progress since VII. 👍
 
The Eastern Catholics I know are sympathetic with Traditionalism, and some of them like the FSSPX, but, disagree in their positions about Collegiality and the “Roman” focus.

I get the impression that Eastern Catholics were less affected by the liberal “Spirit of the Council”.

Blessings!

🙂
 
When I saw the title of this thread, I said “oh no! Not one of those” but as I read through it, so far it isn’t (thankfully). So, OK, now it’s time for my lousy :twocents:

As far as I’m concerned, all the praises heaped upon that Council in respect to the Eastern/Oriental Churches aren’t universally quite as rosy as one might at first think. Oh yes, there’s all the hoop-la about “restoring traditions” and “delatinization” but in some Churches, that idea has been twisted and perverted to mean “clear-out the 16the century latinizations and replace them with Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations.” While I’d far prefer no latinizations at all, I’ll take the 16th century variety any day of the week over what I have to suffer with day-in and day-out. :mad: But enough of that.

Oh, and one last thing. The OP asked about “friendly” Popes. For my buck, there weren’t all that many. The most overlooked is probably Pius XI, although I’m sure some Byzantines will disagree on that. The “unfriendly” Popes are far more common. Yes, Pius IX, and Pius X, already named, plus others. In many ways, the worst of the more recent lot was Pius XII.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
How so?
Click to expand...
I’ve mentioned it before in other threads in this forum, so a search might bring it up, but I’ve no intention (or interest) in making this thread into a diatribe, so I’ll not repeat myself. Suffice it to say that, from my Maronite perspective, he was less than stellar.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
The FSJ is a group that was excommunicated by the former Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarch, +Lubomyr Hussar. In part their excommunication was because they cleaved to heavily Latinized rituals that hardly reflected even a moderately Latinized Byzantine rite. Upon excommunication they were welcomed by the SSPX.

I’m sure the story is actually much more complex than all that, but I don’t really have time to delve into it any further. 😉
Click to expand...
Hi Phillip. Could you provide a link/source for your assertions?

Thanks.
 
TrueLight said:
Also, since EC’s are traditional, why does there seem to be a prevalence of EC’s who are against the traditionalist position?
Click to expand...
I think that depends on which traditionalists you’re talking about. In particular, there are some for whom “tradition” is really more like “nostalgia for the 1950s”. (I’m not trying to make any statement about how common that is, but only that it does exist.)
 
Peter_J said:
Hi Phillip. Could you provide a link/source for your assertions?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
There are also a number of threads about it over at the ByzCath forums. Start at the following thread and work your way through. byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/345899/Priestly%20Society%20of%20St%20Josapha

Also, here is a thread from ByzCath in which our beloved Alex Roman participated under the title “Orthodox Catholic” byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/263545/Searchpage/6/Main/20363/Words/Josaphat+Ukraine/Search/true/Society%20of%20St.%20Pius%20X%20UGCC%20exc#Post263545
 
Hesychios said:
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.
Click to expand...
Very well put, Hesychios! Thank you for this post!

BTW - I recently stumbled upon a YouTube clip of a segment of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy celebrated during the Council on the Feast of St. Nicholas, December 6, 1965 (Bishop Elko)

youtube.com/watch?v=AaLfJ0gbwVk
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
There are also a number of threads about it over at the ByzCath forums. Start at the following thread and work your way through. byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/345899/Priestly%20Society%20of%20St%20Josapha

Also, here is a thread from ByzCath in which our beloved Alex Roman participated under the title “Orthodox Catholic”…
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, the Saint Josephat group [SSJK] was connected to the SSPX though the agency of the Transalpine Redemptorists [T-aR] on Papa Stronsey island. This group had it’s own involvement in eastern rite worship and did not advocate Latinizations (AFAIK), but did make common cause with the SSJK. Alphabet soup … :o

Since the Papa Stronsey group has reconciled with Rome, I suppose that the SSJK have to work directly with the SSPX somehow. I don’t think the SSJK are very numerous, but likely have a lot of sympathizers across western Ukraine.
 
TL - to jump back quickly to one of your OP questions, as regards Pontiffs. it certainly can be argued the Blessed John Paul II was very dedicated to the cause of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

I would point out that he had some very personal involvement with the Ruthenian Church (Eparchy of Mukachevo) through challenging times. Have a look at the Apostolic Successors of the current Eparch of Mukachevo (Ruthenian), Bishop Milan Šašik.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I personally believe that this, in part, has contributed greatly to the slow process of de-Latinization not only in externals, but also the de-Latinization of the mind (i.e. the shedding of Thomistic/neo-Thomistic and Scholastic/neo-Scholastic theology in favor of our own theological approach, as well as a full embracing of our own spiritual and canonical traditions). HOWEVER, knowledge of Eastern Catholicism is on the rise among Roman Catholics, and I’ve encountered much more openness to learning about the Eastern traditions among our Latin brethren. There is less of a tendency to “correct” what we have to say, and more of a tendency to listen and learn than I believe existed in the past.
Click to expand...
Hey Phillip,

Thanks so much for sharing what life was like. It certainly has given me a lot to think about.
i.e. the shedding of Thomistic/neo-Thomistic and Scholastic/neo-Scholastic theology in favor of our own theological approach, as well as a full embracing of our own spiritual and canonical traditions).
Click to expand...
Why must it be shed? Does being an EC mean you have to shed everything Latin? I can’t imagine that before the schism, there was not a co-mingling of ideas and theology. Certainly some who were in the East appreciated some Western thought and some who were in the West appreciated some Eastern thought.

Regarding Latin rite Catholics not understanding, my issue (and maybe this is a personal one) has always been that if something is dogma for one group, then it must be for another.

I actually admire Eastern theology and I would love for it to co-exist side by side. However, if something is defined as dogma for one set of Catholics then it must for the other set. Teachings that are not defined as dogma can use different theology.

I believe it is this kind of confusion over dogma for Western Catholics and dogma for Eastern Catholics eventually leads one to question Catholicism. And that in turns has a lot of Eastern Catholic converts eventually leaving for Orthodoxy, IMHO.

Okay back on topic.

I’m not so sure the rejection of all things Latin does not further separate Eastern Catholics from their Latin brothers.

I’m again wondering if before the schism there was such separation. Any links to more information on that?
 
ByzCathCantor said:
TL - to jump back quickly to one of your OP questions, as regards Pontiffs. it certainly can be argued the Blessed John Paul II was very dedicated to the cause of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

I would point out that he had some very personal involvement with the Ruthenian Church (Eparchy of Mukachevo) through challenging times. Have a look at the Apostolic Successors of the current Eparch of Mukachevo (Ruthenian), Bishop Milan Šašik.
Click to expand...
I would say Blessed John Paul II was very ecumenical, period.
 
TrueLight said:
Why must it be shed? Does being an EC mean you have to shed everything Latin? I can’t imagine that before the schism, there was not a co-mingling of ideas and theology. Certainly some who were in the East appreciated some Western thought and some who were in the West appreciated some Eastern thought.
Click to expand...
Well, there was very little co-mingling. Only very, very few people in the West read Greek and even less in the East read Latin. Besides, scholasticism and thomism is post-schism.
TrueLight said:
Regarding Latin rite Catholics not understanding, my issue (and maybe this is a personal one) has always been that if something is dogma for one group, then it must be for another. I actually admire Eastern theology and I would love for it to co-exist side by side. However, if something is defined as dogma for one set of Catholics then it must for the other set. Teachings that are not defined as dogma can use different theology.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But certain dogmas can be explained differently. The Immaculate Conception dogma is almost incomprehensible to the Byzantine East.
TrueLight said:
I’m not so sure the rejection of all things Latin does not further separate Eastern Catholics from their Latin brothers.
Click to expand...
I think it doesn’t seperate but increases mutual respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top