Which of these situations would be more catholic/universal?

[badnewsbarrett]

Situation one- Within easy driving distance of just about any Catholic in the United States, there is at least one of the following- a Latin Rite parish that has a Novus Ordo mass, a parish that has available masses in Latin, a Syro-Malankara parish where the Indian share of the congregation is about in line with the Indian population in the community overall, a Ukrainian Catholic parish where you can meet a married Catholic priest and hear Vespers regularly, and at least a dozen other Eastern Catholic rites, or Alexandrian, or East Syrian or West Syrian or Armenian. All within reasonable driving distance. Children raised in this situation, as they approach adolescence and then adulthood, are encouraged to explore and experience these different types of rites and masses, perhaps without encouraging them to leave the particular church within which they were raised but also leaving that option open if they have a strong interest.

Situation two- Eastern rites are restricted in immigrant-destination countries, and for the most part, rites that have origins in other parts of the world are basically kept there. As a general rule, most Catholics being raised in the US have the option of the Novus Ordo and TLM, perhaps there is one Eastern Rite parish of some kind within driving distance but that’s about it, you try to keep a reliable ethnic correlation attached to formal membership in these rites, and no effort is made to drastically increase the proportion of Eastern rite parishes to Latin rite parishes in this country. We’ll assume that much is being done to strengthen each rite in whatever part of the world that it is fairly predominant, but there is less of an attempt to make Every rite an option to any one community.

Which of these scenarios seems more catholic, or universal, in the sense that Catholics use the word catholic to mean universal?

I think the crux of this discussion is likely to be the meaning of universal, in a practical sense.

 

[Joe_5859]

I wouldn’t say either scenario is “more catholic” or “more universal” than the other. The Catholic Church does not need to be present in each of Her rites in every locale in order to be fully present.

 

[St_Francis]

What you are describng is not related to the universality of the Catholic faith.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

In addition to what Joe wrote, the diversity of rites in the Catholic Church is due to a variety of world cultures in which the Church grew up. It was not engineered to cater to the variety of personalities among individual persons, so that I can choose vanilla or chocolate.

Even today the Latin rites speak the theological language, as it were, of the Western World, and the Eastern rites, of the Eastern – though there is of course a diaspora and thus Eastern rite parishes within the West, and vice versa. But every rite has the Catholic faith whole and entire, though it be expressed differently. If I am in an Eastern rite, I am not deprived of catholicity because I do not follow exactly the rites and spirituality of the West, and vice versa.

In short, the *Church *may need to breathe with both lungs, but not every individual.

 

[Peter_J]

Situation one- Within easy driving distance of just about any Catholic in the United States, there is at least one of the following- a Latin Rite parish that has a Novus Ordo mass, a parish that has available masses in Latin, a Syro-Malankara parish where the Indian share of the congregation is about in line with the Indian population in the community overall, a Ukrainian Catholic parish where you can meet a married Catholic priest and hear Vespers regularly, and at least a dozen other Eastern Catholic rites, or Alexandrian, or East Syrian or West Syrian or Armenian. All within reasonable driving distance. Children raised in this situation, as they approach adolescence and then adulthood, are encouraged to explore and experience these different types of rites and masses, perhaps without encouraging them to leave the particular church within which they were raised but also leaving that option open if they have a strong interest.

Situation two- Eastern rites are restricted in immigrant-destination countries, and for the most part, rites that have origins in other parts of the world are basically kept there. As a general rule, most Catholics being raised in the US have the option of the Novus Ordo and TLM, perhaps there is one Eastern Rite parish of some kind within driving distance but that’s about it, you try to keep a reliable ethnic correlation attached to formal membership in these rites, and no effort is made to drastically increase the proportion of Eastern rite parishes to Latin rite parishes in this country. We’ll assume that much is being done to strengthen each rite in whatever part of the world that it is fairly predominant, but there is less of an attempt to make Every rite an option to any one community.

Which of these scenarios seems more catholic, or universal, in the sense that Catholics use the word catholic to mean universal?

I think the crux of this discussion is likely to be the meaning of universal, in a practical sense.

I’m assuming that you aren’t saying this for shock value, but I have to say: Huh? Are you trying to tell Eastern Catholics where we should have our parishes, or what exactly?

 

[Vico]

Situation one- Within easy driving distance of just about any Catholic in the United States, there is at least one of the following- a Latin Rite parish that has a Novus Ordo mass, a parish that has available masses in Latin, a Syro-Malankara parish where the Indian share of the congregation is about in line with the Indian population in the community overall, a Ukrainian Catholic parish where you can meet a married Catholic priest and hear Vespers regularly, and at least a dozen other Eastern Catholic rites, or Alexandrian, or East Syrian or West Syrian or Armenian. All within reasonable driving distance. Children raised in this situation, as they approach adolescence and then adulthood, are encouraged to explore and experience these different types of rites and masses, perhaps without encouraging them to leave the particular church within which they were raised but also leaving that option open if they have a strong interest.

Situation two- Eastern rites are restricted in immigrant-destination countries, and for the most part, rites that have origins in other parts of the world are basically kept there. As a general rule, most Catholics being raised in the US have the option of the Novus Ordo and TLM, perhaps there is one Eastern Rite parish of some kind within driving distance but that’s about it, you try to keep a reliable ethnic correlation attached to formal membership in these rites, and no effort is made to drastically increase the proportion of Eastern rite parishes to Latin rite parishes in this country. We’ll assume that much is being done to strengthen each rite in whatever part of the world that it is fairly predominant, but there is less of an attempt to make Every rite an option to any one community.

Which of these scenarios seems more catholic, or universal, in the sense that Catholics use the word catholic to mean universal?

I think the crux of this discussion is likely to be the meaning of universal, in a practical sense.

The second is more universal because it ensures the heterogenous. One is a member of the Catholic Church through membership in a ritual Church. It is not universal to encourage the faithful to abandon their own proper ritual Church because the faithful are to do everything to grow in understanding of it. Universality is demonstrated when the same Catholic Church exists in various forms in different places, but not requiring overlapping territories. The Church as the Body of Christ is heterogeneous rather than homogenous.

 

[Peter_J]

The second is more universal

In a way, yes. But beware of a false choice. Situation two also says:

… Eastern rites are restricted in immigrant-destination countries, and for the most part, rites that have origins in other parts of the world are basically kept there.

and

you try to keep a reliable ethnic correlation attached to formal membership in these rites,

Situation two sounds contrived to be bad.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

As long as the Church has a presence, it doesn’t matter what rite. Neither is more universal, although situation 1 would be cool. I love ethnic diversity.

 

[glendab]

Hello Badnews.

Situation one- Within easy driving distance of just about any Catholic in the United States, there is at least one of the following- a Latin Rite parish that has a Novus Ordo mass, a parish that has available masses in Latin, a Syro-Malankara parish where the Indian share of the congregation is about in line with the Indian population in the community overall, a Ukrainian Catholic parish where you can meet a married Catholic priest and hear Vespers regularly, and at least a dozen other Eastern Catholic rites, or Alexandrian, or East Syrian or West Syrian or Armenian. All within reasonable driving distance. Children raised in this situation, as they approach adolescence and then adulthood, are encouraged to explore and experience these different types of rites and masses, perhaps without encouraging them to leave the particular church within which they were raised but also leaving that option open if they have a strong interest.

Situation two- Eastern rites are restricted in immigrant-destination countries, and for the most part, rites that have origins in other parts of the world are basically kept there. As a general rule, most Catholics being raised in the US have the option of the Novus Ordo and TLM, perhaps there is one Eastern Rite parish of some kind within driving distance but that’s about it, you try to keep a reliable ethnic correlation attached to formal membership in these rites, and no effort is made to drastically increase the proportion of Eastern rite parishes to Latin rite parishes in this country. We’ll assume that much is being done to strengthen each rite in whatever part of the world that it is fairly predominant, but there is less of an attempt to make Every rite an option to any one community.

Which of these scenarios seems more catholic, or universal, in the sense that Catholics use the word catholic to mean universal?

I think the crux of this discussion is likely to be the meaning of universal, in a practical sense.

I’m not going to answer your question. I’m going to say this: I sincerely wish the other Rites of the Church were more readily available to us, PERIOD. I think it very sad and a shame that we are allowing other VALID RITES TO DIE OUT. If there is a call to unity among us, we need to begin that charity right here at home. We need to be supportive of all the valid Rites in the Church, spiritually, physically and financially. They all are part of the Church and one is not less than the other. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. The other Rites are just as Holy as the NO and the TLM. There should be no either/or thinking in our midst. That is divisive and detrimental to all of us. Each Rite preserves a portion of our shared heritage as Catholics. They deserve our support no matter what. SO, go visit the various Rites that are near you wherever you live and drop more than you usual donation in the basket. They are struggling to survive from neglect from all of us. When one Rite closes its doors for lack of support, we all lose. They aren’t separate from the Body, just different. Anyone who takes the call to Unity seriously should be supporting the other valid Rites with more than just lip service.

Glenda

 

[Vico]

In a way, yes. But beware of a false choice. Situation two also says:

… Eastern rites are restricted in immigrant-destination countries, and for the most part, rites that have origins in other parts of the world are basically kept there.

The eastern parishes are restricted in growth in reality because there are not many adult non-Christians electing to be baptized into the eastern parishes in the immigrant areas, and family size is smaller in modern times.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

I can see how Eastern Catholics might not like the way the original post was framed. It could be read as to imply that Eastern Catholic churches should quite literally be marginalized. Given the small size and fragility of some of the Eastern Catholic churches, I can see why one might be suspicious.

The issue that undergirds the post, though, seems important. We’re in a fairly novel situation where believers can choose their church based on personal preference, much as one would choose a restaurant. Or, as Ad Orientem mentioned, an ice-cream flavor. The church where one worships is more than ever divorced from the community in which one lives and works.

I’ve always attended my neighborhood church, one that I could walk to. I’ve had to move a few times in my life, so I’ve had a few parishes. Some liberal, some conservative. Some ethnic, others not. I’ve always trusted that God would give me what I needed in each, without me having to shop for the best.

For better or for worse, it seems like the days of the vanilla neighborhood parish are coming to an end.

To be clear, I’m grateful for the existence of the Eastern churches, and don’t believe we can or should go back in time to option 2 (i.e., churches identified strictly with national cultures/borders). I also don’t doubt that some Latin Catholics have a vocation to canonically transfer to an Eastern church.

But I wouldn’t want option 1 either, where each individual chooses a church based on his or her personal criteria, divorced from the community in which he lives and works. For most of us, it’s best to just go to the parish in your neighborhood.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I can see how Eastern Catholics might not like the way the original post was framed. It could be read as to imply that Eastern Catholic churches should quite literally be marginalized. Given the small size and fragility of some of the Eastern Catholic churches, I can see why one might be suspicious.

The issue that undergirds the post, though, seems important. We’re in a fairly novel situation where believers can choose their church based on personal preference, much as one would choose a restaurant. Or, as Ad Orientem mentioned, an ice-cream flavor. The church where one worships is more than ever divorced from the community in which one lives and works.

I’ve always attended my neighborhood church, one that I could walk to. I’ve had to move a few times in my life, so I’ve had a few parishes. Some liberal, some conservative. Some ethnic, others not. I’ve always trusted that God would give me what I needed in each, without me having to shop for the best.

For better or for worse, it seems like the days of the vanilla neighborhood parish are coming to an end.

To be clear, I’m grateful for the existence of the Eastern churches, and don’t believe we can or should go back in time to option 2 (i.e., churches identified strictly with national cultures/borders). I also don’t doubt that some Latin Catholics have a vocation to canonically transfer to an Eastern church.

But I wouldn’t want option 1 either, where each individual chooses a church based on his or her personal criteria, divorced from the community in which he lives and works. For most of us, it’s best to just go to the parish in your neighborhood.

There are some exceptions to going in your neighborhood. The Catholic Church in my town is small with a lot of older people and not much besides Mass going on. It works fine on a snow day or if I have company. If I drive 1/2 an hour, I get an extremely active church with a lot of young adults. There are a lot of study groups and activities going on. For me, I am much more fulfilled at that parish and so I usually make the drive.

 

[Peter_J]

I can see how Eastern Catholics might not like the way the original post was framed. It could be read as to imply that Eastern Catholic churches should quite literally be marginalized.

I find this very strange. I don’t see anything like that in the OP.

However, I liked your later comment:

I’ve always attended my neighborhood church

This is the norm in Greek and Oriental Catholicism as well, not just LCism. It’s just that some places like the USA are an exception, since ECs are a very small minority. (Likewise for LCs living in, say, Lebanon.)

 

[badnewsbarrett]

The eastern parishes are restricted in growth in reality because there are not many adult non-Christians electing to be baptized into the eastern parishes in the immigrant areas, and family size is smaller in modern times.

They’re also restricted in growth because it’s a rather difficult process for the child of Latin Rite parents to formally switch to an Eastern Rite. It’s possible, of course, but it is a bit more of an involved process than it might be. And if we’re looking toward the possibility of growth in the Eastern Rites- at least initially, if we’re being honest with ourselves- the main source of their growth, apart from children born to immigrant parents, is going to be Catholics of the Latin Rite who decide they want to be a part of the Eastern Rite instead, presuming they are able to act on that desire as readily as they would like to.

The Eastern Rites are also restricted when it comes to ordaining married priests. There are exceptions to the rules on a case by case basis, but as a general rule, Eastern rites that have a married priesthood are not permitted to ordain married priests in North America. They can get special exemptions, yes, and of course they’ve been permitted to import married priests from across the ocean for a few decades now, but the general rule to begin with is that they are restricted in the ordination of married priests on this particular continent and not entirely free to do this. This is relevant because the number of parishes you’re able to maintain, apart from financial constraints, is directly related to the number of priests that you have on hand. This restriction causes Eastern Catholic rites to have fewer priests (produced domestically) than they otherwise might, and this in turn means there are fewer Eastern Catholic parishes (and seminaries) than there might otherwise be.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

As long as the Church has a presence, it doesn’t matter what rite. Neither is more universal, although situation 1 would be cool. I love ethnic diversity.

I looked up a summary on Catholic universality from Catholicity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, simplified. catholicity.com/catechism/the_church_is_catholic.html

My brief summary of this thing that is itself a summary: The Catholic Church (according to its Catechism) proclaims itself to be universal in two ways. One way- Christ is present in her, and she receives from Him the “fullness of the truth.” This has been at least tangentially addressed or implied in some of the responses, however let’s not forget that there is another sense (per the Catechism) in which the Catholic Church proclaims itself to be universal.

Second, the Church is catholic because she has a mission to the whole world. The Latin rite has really hit this one hard- at this point, it would seem most strange to point out to a Latin rite Catholic that they are not Italian and they don’t speak Latin. At this point, ethnicity, language, and country of origin obviously has nothing to do with being Catholic, much less with being Catholic of the particularly Latin rite.

Now with that being said. The Eastern rites are catholic in both senses of the word, yes? Christ is present in them as well, and they are equal parts involved in the fullness of truth business. But doesn’t the second sense of the word “universal” apply to them equally as well? Aren’t the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church equally given a mission to the whole world, including North, Central, and South America, including France and Spain and Italy, including Africa and Asia and Australia? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church be working toward a time when an Irish person living in the northeast United States no longer gets weird looks when he or she says I’m Ukrainian Catholic…oh, I’m sorry, was I expected to be Latin rite? Not quite as much anymore- should be a goal for the future, I think.

There is actually one other reason to pursue this in certain specific parts of the United States in particular (and actually Ireland as well, for that matter). Some Latin rite parishes are closing down, partly because nominal Catholics stay at home too often but mostly because there are not enough Latin rite priests to cover all the parishes in certain areas. So the parishes that draw the least amount of people close down and the bigger parishes ask that certain people drive a bit farther and become a part of a larger parish (which is arguably just as much responsible for causing people to stay at home). Here’s an idea- instead of simply shuttering a parish, why not use some strategery and look for opportunities to switch a parish from being Latin rite to Eastern rite? I mean, why tear one thing down or sell it to non-Catholics while eventually building an Eastern rite parish somewhere else when you can just use an existing structure for a slightly different purpose- and most especially when you’re in a position where the parish would have to close down otherwise anyway, and for reasons that are not primarily related to a lack of Catholics in the area who would like to have a place to go to church.

That scenario applies most especially in New England and in Ireland, where the number of priests has declined steadily over quite a few decades while the population of the Catholic laity has gone up steadily and more sharply. Perhaps some strategies could be developed with the Eastern rites that would allow some parishes to switch hands, in a sense, instead of being shuttered.

Some articles on parish closures. cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/25/cleveland.catholic.parish.closures/
milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=6662487&ct=10918543
projectym.com/the-changing-face-of-u-s-catholic-parishes/

 

[Vico]

They’re also restricted in growth because it’s a rather difficult process for the child of Latin Rite parents to formally switch to an Eastern Rite. It’s possible, of course, but it is a bit more of an involved process than it might be. And if we’re looking toward the possibility of growth in the Eastern Rites- at least initially, if we’re being honest with ourselves- the main source of their growth, apart from children born to immigrant parents, is going to be Catholics of the Latin Rite who decide they want to be a part of the Eastern Rite instead, presuming they are able to act on that desire as readily as they would like to.

The Eastern Rites are also restricted when it comes to ordaining married priests. There are exceptions to the rules on a case by case basis, but as a general rule, Eastern rites that have a married priesthood are not permitted to ordain married priests in North America. They can get special exemptions, yes, and of course they’ve been permitted to import married priests from across the ocean for a few decades now, but the general rule to begin with is that they are restricted in the ordination of married priests on this particular continent and not entirely free to do this. This is relevant because the number of parishes you’re able to maintain, apart from financial constraints, is directly related to the number of priests that you have on hand. This restriction causes Eastern Catholic rites to have fewer priests (produced domestically) than they otherwise might, and this in turn means there are fewer Eastern Catholic parishes (and seminaries) than there might otherwise be.

The Byzantine Catholic Church is USA is now accepting an unlimited number of deacons (married or not), anticipating that some will become priests. This represents a recent change because is was limited.

It is not the norm to transfer ritual churches except at marriage (but not for the eastern Catholic Spouse). Why?

CIC Canon 112 (NCCCL, Beal, Coriden, Green) “… because ascription to a ritual church is definitive, it belongs to the status of persons.”

“In effect, the canon distinguishes membership from liturgical practice. This means that change of ritual church membership occurs in one of the three ways provided for in paragraph one.”
My Notes on Transfer of Ritual Church

Sufficient reasons:

• Unification of Church sui iuris in a family (mother, father).
• Return to the Church sui iuris of one’s ancestors.
• Spouse who wishes to transfer for peace and unity in the home.
• Physical or moral impossibility by permanent circumstances to use one’s own Church sui iuris.
• Domicile and or activity among those who are almost all of another Church sui iuris.
• Entry into religious life under different Church sui iuris.
• Incardination to serve different Church sui iuris.

Insufficient reasons:

• Education, attending school or church or sacraments, in another Church, or ignorance of own Church sui iuris with good knowledge of other Church sui iuris.
• Good for the soul (because all churches are good for the soul).
• Defects in a Church (because all churches are have defects).
• Peace of mind or conscience cannot be judged.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

The Byzantine Catholic Church is USA is now accepting an unlimited number of deacons (married or not), anticipating that some will become priests. This represents a recent change because is was limited.

I’m going to need a source on this one. I’m also curious to see just how much or the residual 1930s restrictions have been undone and what is still left in place. But most especially, I need a source.

It is not the norm to transfer ritual churches except at marriage (but not for the eastern Catholic Spouse). Why?

CIC Canon 112 (NCCCL, Beal, Coriden, Green) “… because ascription to a ritual church is definitive, it belongs to the status of persons.”

“In effect, the canon distinguishes membership from liturgical practice. This means that change of ritual church membership occurs in one of the three ways provided for in paragraph one.”
My Notes on Transfer of Ritual Church

Sufficient reasons:

• Unification of Church sui iuris in a family (mother, father).
• Return to the Church sui iuris of one’s ancestors.
• Spouse who wishes to transfer for peace and unity in the home.
• Physical or moral impossibility by permanent circumstances to use one’s own Church sui iuris.
• Domicile and or activity among those who are almost all of another Church sui iuris.
• Entry into religious life under different Church sui iuris.
• Incardination to serve different Church sui iuris.

Insufficient reasons:

• Education, attending school or church or sacraments, in another Church, or ignorance of own Church sui iuris with good knowledge of other Church sui iuris.
• Good for the soul (because all churches are good for the soul).
• Defects in a Church (because all churches are have defects).
• Peace of mind or conscience cannot be judged.

Thank you for that information, that’s quite helpful. I wonder if there is any difference in sufficient vs. insufficient reasons when it comes to teenagers and college students? It’s one thing if you’re the head of a household and responsible for a whole family being in one church or another, but what if you’re young, it’s just you, and you feel like you should be able to freely choose between one Catholic rite and another rite for any reason or no reason at all? Or what if you want to eventually raise children within the CC but you also want any potential sons to have the option of becoming married priests if they discern that as God’s will for them, and any potential daughters to be better positioned to become a priests’ wife. I suppose that second idea would be an insufficient reason…but for young people that are not heads of households, is it realistic for some of those reasons to be more relaxed?

 

[Vico]

I’m going to need a source on this one. I’m also curious to see just how much or the residual 1930s restrictions have been undone and what is still left in place. But most especially, I need a source.

Thank you for that information, that’s quite helpful. I wonder if there is any difference in sufficient vs. insufficient reasons when it comes to teenagers and college students? It’s one thing if you’re the head of a household and responsible for a whole family being in one church or another, but what if you’re young, it’s just you, and you feel like you should be able to freely choose between one Catholic rite and another rite for any reason or no reason at all? Or what if you want to eventually raise children within the CC but you also want any potential sons to have the option of becoming married priests if they discern that as God’s will for them, and any potential daughters to be better positioned to become a priests’ wife. I suppose that second idea would be an insufficient reason…but for young people that are not heads of households, is it realistic for some of those reasons to be more relaxed?

It is based upon tradition that one is ascribed membership in the Church through valid baptism in a particular ritual church, and it is per the ritual of the priest of that ritual church, normally the pastor, also the pastor of the Catholic parent or guardian. If one is baptized as an adult (age 14) any ritual church can be freely chosen.

However the Holy See makes exceptions for individuals or groups based upon their situations, but transfers have been denied (by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches) even when both bishops have approved.

CCEO has this:
Canon 35 - Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church* sui iuris* of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.