P
- Status
A
a_pilgrim
Guest
“Lord, have mercy!”
P
pickguard1
Guest
Thanks!
B
BernadetteM
Guest
The Anglican Use liturgy is not a transitional liturgy and does not revert back to the ordinary form. This is a misconception. I don’t know where this information started. I don’t want to be unkind, but there are people both in the Catholic Church and in some Continuing Anglican churches that seem to post this misinformation on a constant basis. Please contact The Most Reverend John J. Myers Archbishop of Newark who is the Ecclesiastical Delegate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Pastoral Provision to the Anglican Use Society to clarify what Rome has given to the Pastoral Provision parishes. Yes some parishes have been lost, but there were reasons for this. More are starting. You may also contact St. Thomas More Society for more accurate information.
God Bless
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I don’t agree with you PJM, and I’m a SSPX sympathiser. The Eastern Catholic Churches are as Catholic as the Latin ones, sometimes even more so. More than a few Latin Catholics have moved temporarily or permanently to EC churches to get away from the false doctrine they were getting in many liberal RC parishes.
P
PJM
Guest
Dear Brother in Christ,
You make a very interesting argument, that falls just short of “the fullness of TRUTH” of which I speak as residing only in the RCC.
Unlike some other Catholics we know, I take no delight is trying to broaden you’re understanding.
I have NO DOUBT that much good eminates from the Eastern Churches, and as I previously said, I envy you’re level of piety in the Sacred Liturgy, which is fitting and very beautiful.
One indispuitable fact remains and that fact is that Jesus founded only one Church, and desires only one Church.
If the Primacy of Peter is not the cause of the Schism, perhaps it deals with the RCC Creeds and the Holy Spirit? The cause is not nearly as signifiant as the effect.
What ever the differences and whatever the reasons, they fail to accomidate Christ Call for One Catholic Church. Therefore, my statement about the “fullness of TRUTH” residing in the RCC is the single TRUTH.
Love and prayer’s that one day soon we shall indeed be “One Church!”
Pat
P
pickguard1
Guest
Dear Pat,
I think you are confusing the Othodox Churches (who were separated from Rome with the Schism and various schism within their own ecclesial communities afterwards), and those communities of various rites that ARE unitied with Rome. It’s easy to get them confused. I was confused and completely unaware that there were Catholics who have different Litugies until somewhat recently. Your understanding of “ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH” interjects your personal opinion. The ROMAN Catholic Church has NEVER claimed to posess the only valid form of liturgy. Frankly, I don’t quite understand your argument that the RCC alone has the fullness of faith. It is the Catholic Church (not Roman) that posesses this.
All members of the Catholic Church (which include Romans, Maronites, Ruthenians, Byzantine Catholics, etc.) are part of the ONE TRUE CHURCH. They all acknowledge the Pope in Rome as the head of the Church. What is your argument?
peace,
Will
A
Aramis
Guest
PJM, if you’re basing your opinion of the Roman Church as the fullest expression, that was never dogmatic, it was doctrine at both Trent and Venice, but has repeatedly (Pious XII, Vatican II, Paul VI, John XXIII, JP II, Benedict XVI) been repudiated. The Doctrine has been, since Pious XII, to de-latinize and to recognize the fullness of the eastern churches in union.
Latinization has been declared an abuse by the Vatican II council; this was well in accord with Pious XII’s instructions to the Eastern Churches (a few didn’t listen until later, Like His Grace Nicholas + Elko, who was removed from his see by Pp. Paul VI, and made a Roman Auxiliary).
Given that of the last 6 popes, 5 have attested the equal status of the Eastern Churches with the Roman Church (Pious XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI), and the Vatican II council made it doctrinal, as well… and even Benedict XV encouraged a flourishing of the Eastern Churches. Pious X overrode the 1st Plenary Council of Baltimore, and allowed both monastic rites and eastern rites to be used in the US, and permitted Eastern Bishops in the US. (IIRC, B. XV installed them)
So of the last 10 popes, 7 have actively advanced the Eastern Churches, often over the complaints of Roman Bishops. There is a pattern, and a reason: Trent and Venice councils were wrong to declare the supremacy and goal of latinization of the eastern churches.
Latinization has been declared an abuse by the Vatican II council; this was well in accord with Pious XII’s instructions to the Eastern Churches (a few didn’t listen until later, Like His Grace Nicholas + Elko, who was removed from his see by Pp. Paul VI, and made a Roman Auxiliary).
Given that of the last 6 popes, 5 have attested the equal status of the Eastern Churches with the Roman Church (Pious XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI), and the Vatican II council made it doctrinal, as well… and even Benedict XV encouraged a flourishing of the Eastern Churches. Pious X overrode the 1st Plenary Council of Baltimore, and allowed both monastic rites and eastern rites to be used in the US, and permitted Eastern Bishops in the US. (IIRC, B. XV installed them)
So of the last 10 popes, 7 have actively advanced the Eastern Churches, often over the complaints of Roman Bishops. There is a pattern, and a reason: Trent and Venice councils were wrong to declare the supremacy and goal of latinization of the eastern churches.
M
malphono
Guest
Can you tell me please why PP Pius XI is off your list? I hope it was just an oversight.
P
pickguard1
Guest
I didn’t know that was the case. I’ll have to actually READ Trent (rather than rely solely on the few quotations regarding Papal Infallibility, etc.)
Thanks for the insight! It seems silly to think of the Church being some giant megalithic monochromatic entity, when the expression of the Church since its beginning has incorporated so much of the various cultures it encountered.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
PJM,
Are you confusing Eastern Catholics with Eastern Orthodox?
Blessings,
ZP
Are you confusing Eastern Catholics with Eastern Orthodox?
Blessings,
ZP
A
Aramis
Guest
Because I’m not aware of any pro- (or for that matter anti-) eastern catholic action by HH Pious XI.
A quick look at his wikipedia entry doesn’t speak much to putting him on the staunchly “Equal in dignity” list, but he certainly doesn’t contracdict Pius IX nor Pious X on their advancements of the eastern churches. He does accept the Malabars… but Venice also suggested unification (and then latinization of) the EO churches, so it’s not enough. But also, during his reign, in the US, at least, Latinizations were running rampant.
M
malphono
Guest
Ah yes, as I’ve said so very often, PP Pius XI is the forgotten Pope. He did a lot more for the Orient and East than you might think (certainly beats the rather dismal record of Pius IX), but no, I cannot provide chapter-and-verse of sources, (even if it were there, I would never quote wikipedia in any case) so I’ll let it go at that. Whatever. It was just an idle question by one who happens to have a very high regard for him.
M
mardukm
Guest
HH Pope Pius XI is very well-known for his great promotion of indigenous clergy and bishops. He is best known for his explicit opposition to all the totalitarian regimes cropping up during his time (Communists, Nazis, and Fascists).
Blessings
Blessings
A
Aramis
Guest
Pious IX did make a MAJOR impact: the Plenary Councils of Baltimore (the nascent USCCB) had banned the Eastern Churches, rejected the Eastern Catholics, and rejected the other western catholic rites, even the monastic rites. Pious IX overrode them, and not only allowed the eastern rites into the US, but also the Monastic Rites (including the one I’m familiar with, the Dominican). This paved the way for people taking their ritual churches with them as the emigrated.
M
malphono
Guest
The US in the mid-19th century. And bringing the ever-phobic US into line on those matters. Wow. (Lack of exclamation point intentional.) Such a great accomplishment.
And if the tales are true, Pius IX apparently also made an IMPACT on the Melkite Patriarch.
Face it: his is a dismal record vis-à-vis the East and Orient.
My point was Pius XI. But, whatever. And who cares, anyway?
End of my involvement in this thread.
And BTW, the spelling is P-I-U-S. The “o” is absent in the name.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Aramis,
I know that a policy of uniformity emanated from Trent, but this was not a specific reaction to Easterns or Orientals. Latinization may have been a side-effect of the uniform policies of Trent, but it certainly was not a direct attack on Eastern and Oriental Traditions (though perhaps your are not claiming the latter at all). In any case, Latinization in MOST instances (not all instances) seems to have its direct origin from overzealous Latin missionaries, hierarchs (even the papal curia), and even secular rulers, not the Popes themselves.
Blessings,
Marduk
What are your sources for this statement? AFAIK, the Republic of Venice has always been a haven for the Greeks (due to its large Greek population). despite its commercial rivalry with the traditionally Orthodox lands along the Mediterranean. And Trent really had nothing to say about the Easterns or Orientals, AFAIK.
I know that a policy of uniformity emanated from Trent, but this was not a specific reaction to Easterns or Orientals. Latinization may have been a side-effect of the uniform policies of Trent, but it certainly was not a direct attack on Eastern and Oriental Traditions (though perhaps your are not claiming the latter at all). In any case, Latinization in MOST instances (not all instances) seems to have its direct origin from overzealous Latin missionaries, hierarchs (even the papal curia), and even secular rulers, not the Popes themselves.
Blessings,
Marduk
W
wynd
Guest
It would appear so.
A
Aramis
Guest
Several elements of Trent directly run to latinization:
Seventh Session:
CANON III.-If any one saith, that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any simple priest soever; let him be anathema.
This is counter to the Eastern Tradition, and to other treaties of union (Brest amongst them). There are many examples of this kind of blanket statement in Trent; most are more subtle. This one stands out as blatantly prohibiting priests from confirming.
the 21st session says children have no need of communion.
I can’t remember which council Venice was a continuation of; the resulting canons explicitly called for the use of the ECC’s as a means of making all Christians Roman Rite.
M
mardukm
Guest
This canon does not forbid priests from confirming. It simply asserts that the bishop is the ORDINARY minister of Confirmation. A bishop can certainly empower a priest to do so - and that is in fact the teaching of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. I mean, we certainly don’t teach that a priest has the inherent authority, prerogative or power to grant another priest the power to confirm - only the bishop can do that (well, that’s the way it is in the COC; I’m not sure if that’s the way it is in the Eastern Churches). So I don’t see how that is a Latinization.
To be clear, the Decree did not prohibit the practice. It simply asserted that it is wrong to believe that a baptized infant will forfeit salvation simply because the infant has not received communion. Now, I’ll admit that perhaps certain Latins interpreted this to be an actual prohibition against infant communion, but that is not actually what the Decree did.
I’m utterly blank on the whole matter myself.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status