Why Do So Many Hate Things Roman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter At_Trent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex
I know that some EC's (and I believe they're a minority) get offended when they hear us Latin Catholics come out in support of those in your churches who wish to retain devotions that have Latin origins, but seriously, do you ever hear RC's flat out attack Eastern devotions, worship, art, etc ? In the last 10 years, I've heard on several occasions (nearly all from converts) Attacks on the use of Latin, criticism of Adoration, criticism of Fatima devotions, mocking comments about the Sacred Heart (what's next the Sacred Kidneys as one poster on an Eastern forum put it) our religious art called feminine, that one's actually fairly common. Even when the Melkites put out that comparison leaflet showing the differences between the Byzantine and Roman churches, it looked pretty obvious that the intent was to simply say "Our church is better"
 
Seamus_L said:
**but seriously, do you ever hear RC’s flat out attack Eastern devotions, worship, art, etc ? **
Click to expand...
I know you didn’t ask me, but I’ve never seen such on any Roman Catholic forum whether contemporary or traditional. 🤷
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
Boy that’s the truth…sadly over here on the Latin side we have to deal with Latin Rite Catholics wanting to completely remove the Latin from the Rite…:slapfight:…among other things. Worst part is when you try to preserve the identity of your Rite you’re called a heretic. :blackeye: Although what am I saying you Eastern Catholics already know what that feels like.
Click to expand...
That’s not been my experience talking to your run-of-the-mill Latin Catholic. They don’t want the Latin FORCED on them because they want to understand the Liturgy. I’ve never met a Latin Catholic claim Latin itself should NEVER be used without qualification. Normally, what I hear is “I don’t want Latin back.” That’s very different from saying, “Latin should NEVER be used under any circumstances.” I think the view you express is merely a polemic to get others to sympathize with your position. The problem is that, from my personal experience, Traditionalist-minded Catholics are normally the ones who want to FORCE Latin on everyone else in the Latin Catholic Church. This normally comes with the usual polemic that the Novus Ordo is a heretical innovation.

As I’ve often stated, Traditionalist Catholics (not all) often are the cause of their own misfortune because of their “my way or the highway” attitude, often confusing disciplines with dogma, and making discpline a basis for schism.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
The problem is that, from my personal experience, Traditionalist-minded Catholics are normally the ones who want to FORCE Latin on everyone else in the Latin Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Could you please give a link to an example of this ? I’m over on TC a lot and have never seen such sentiment. Just a single post will do 🙂

I see Latin defended quite often, but never any demands it be accepted as you claim here.
 
mardukm said:
I’ve never met a Latin Catholic claim Latin itself should NEVER be used without qualification. Normally, what I hear is “I don’t want Latin back.” That’s very different from saying, “Latin should NEVER be used under any circumstances.”
Click to expand...
Actually it’s worse than that. Many don’t want anything that even sounds Latin, like, for example, “visible” and “consubstantial” as in the new translation. :eek:

As far as being forced, I guess many of the Western world don’t realize much of their vocabulary has Latin roots, half the world uses the Latin alphabet, and the Church uses a Christianized version of a codifed language that pre-dates Christ. So very sorry to offend those -]ignorant/-] oblivious folks.
 
Seamus_L said:
Even when the Melkites put out that comparison leaflet showing the differences between the Byzantine and Roman churches, it looked pretty obvious that the intent was to simply say “Our church is better”
Click to expand...
Can you please give a link to this? I recall seeing a comparison list, about which I personally only had one complaint, but it was generally very accurate, and I did not sense any triumphalism. I am wondering if we’re talking about the same list.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
At_Trent said:
Could you please give a link to an example of this ? I’m over on TC a lot and have never see such sentiment. Just a single post will do 🙂

I see Latin defended quite often, but never any demands it be accepted as you claim here.
Click to expand...
You seriously have never noticed a single member of the Traditionalist Forum disparage the Novus Ordo as an unorthodox innovation? You seriously have never noticed a single member of the Traditionalist Forum disparage the use of vernacular? That itself is sufficient proof that there are Traditionalists who want to force Latin on everyone else in the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Wouldn’t it be better to let Romans and Greeks organically influence eachother’s traditions instead of forcing an artificial hell of strict ritual purity? I’m Roman through and through but I’ve found certain Greek practices edifying, so what’s wrong if some Greeks want to do benediction, stations, the rosary, etc. (as long as it isn’t forced on them, of course), aside from an irrational insistence on ritual purity rather then honest worship? 😃
 
mardukm said:
You seriously have never noticed a single member of the Traditionalist Forum disparage the Novus Ordo as an unorthodox innovation? You seriously have never noticed a single member of the Traditionalist Forum disparage the use of vernacular? That itself is sufficient proof that there are Traditionalists who want to force Latin on everyone else in the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Ok, fair enough. You don’t have any posts to quote. Only what you want certain posts to imply whether they do or not. Fine. That’s all I was asking 🙂
 
mardukm said:
That’s not been my experience talking to your run-of-the-mill Latin Catholic. They don’t want the Latin FORCED on them because they want to understand the Liturgy. I’ve never met a Latin Catholic claim Latin itself should NEVER be used without qualification. Normally, what I hear is “I don’t want Latin back.” That’s very different from saying, “Latin should NEVER be used under any circumstances.” I think the view you express is merely a polemic to get others to sympathize with your position. The problem is that, from my personal experience, Traditionalist-minded Catholics are normally the ones who want to FORCE Latin on everyone else in the Latin Catholic Church. This normally comes with the usual polemic that the Novus Ordo is a heretical innovation.
Click to expand...
Sounds like your saying because your experience wasn’t the same as mine then by default my experience holds no weight? I don’t need anyone’s sympathy and I do not look for them especially since they do not change a darn thing. Lastly just so you know I do not view the Novus Ordos as a heretical innovation. I do view the methods in which some have chosen to celebrate it as heretical.

God Bless.
 
As I’ve often stated, Traditionalist Catholics (not all) often are the cause of their own misfortune because of their “my way or the highway” attitude, often confusing disciplines with dogma, and making discpline a basis for schism.
Click to expand...
I find this to be the stance of many Novus Ordo Catholics as well, who will straight up leave a parish or even the Church if so much as any Latin is spoken at either a Latin Novus Ordo or a Tridentine Mass is performed.

It goes both ways.
Lastly just so you know I do not view the Novus Ordos as a heretical innovation. I do view the methods in which some have chosen to celebrate it as heretical.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I think that the 3rd revision of the Mass will be a good change. It will bring the Novus Ordo more into communion with the original Tridentine one. I think, personally, we should find some common ground between the two extremes. IE, 3rd Revision Novus Ordo mass, with Latin used in the actual liturgy (Not the homily, which has always been vernacular, and maybe the readings in the vernacular as well), will I think find some common ground in the two masses.
 
I suppose if I want an understanding on the history of latinizations, I’m out of luck asking here :cool:

Seamus L, thanks for what you offered. It’s a start.
 
At_Trent said:
I scan these threads here in Eastern, and see some fairly disturbing comments. Anti - latinizations, anti-Gregorian chant, etc.

Over on the TC forum I don’t see anti-Eastern comments, but again, see anti-Latin comments.

Why ?
Click to expand...
The same reason can be said about Traditionalists like you who think standing to receive Communion lacks reverence. Isn’t that insulting to Eastern Christians who’s tradition from far back is to receive Communion standing? When we speak here, we speak for Eastern Traditions. Even CITH is a long-standing tradition in the Assyrian Church of the East/Chaldean Catholic Church. Would you accept this traditional practice in the Roman Catholic Church? I know you wouldn’t. Can I say you’re anti-Chaldean because you do not want to receive standing and CITH? I know that is not what you mean, but also you wouldn’t want the traditions of another Rite to be adopted forcefully into your own Rite.

Yes, we are anti-Latin because well its not part of the Greek tradition. Not that we want the Latin Church to disappear. Latin traditions are good for the Latin Church, but not the Eastern Churches. The same way that Eastern traditions are for the Eastern churches and not good in the Latin Church.
 
MarcusAndreas said:
Wouldn’t it be better to let Romans and Greeks organically influence eachother’s traditions instead of forcing an artificial hell of strict ritual purity? I’m Roman through and through but I’ve found certain Greek practices edifying, so what’s wrong if some Greeks want to do benediction, stations, the rosary, etc. (as long as it isn’t forced on them, of course), aside from an irrational insistence on ritual purity rather then honest worship? 😃
Click to expand...
I agree! But the problem is the history thats already there when many Roman Catholics in the past have tried to forcefully inject Latin traditions, some with the intention of transitioning Eastern Catholics into Roman Catholicism. At this point we need to rediscover authentic Eastern Spirituality first, then move forward and organically integrate Latin devotions and practices we find fitting with our spirituality.
 
At Trent
If you really want to learn about the Eastern Catholic Churches. Go to a liturgy and then sit and have coffee with someone who's over 60 or 70, and let them tell you about their Church. You may find it's a bit different from what you hear online.
 
I don’t think I’ve ever come across an EC that “hates” anything Roman. I think what you may be sensing, OP, is a frustration that’s built up over time that EC practices and distinct theological expressions (fully orthodox expressions, mind you) are somehow second-class to the practices and distinct theological expressions of the Latin Church. I’m sure that much of this has to due with the fact that the Latin Church is far and away the biggest, and therefore its practices and expressions are considered “normal”, and EC praxis is abnormal, or grudgingly accepted with a sigh. This is my personal opinion based on my person observation as an outsider to all of it.

If that is not your experience (that ECs are second-class), then perhaps you run in an exceptionally well-rounded circle. I’ve seen the attitude on these forums myself. It’s not even something that I could probably link you to (and no small reason is that I can’t even remember where- I’m a mom to a busy toddler, so if I can remember to turn off the coffee pot before I go to bed, I’m doing good), it’s more insidious than an explicit statement.
 
Eastern Spirituality has its own identity. As Eastern Catholics, we need to reestablish that. Its a mandate the Popes of recent times have given us. Its not hating things Roman, its reestablishing Eastern praxis in the Eastern Churches.
 
As a Roman I dont really think its appropriate to force our rite ritual into Byzantine ritualism. While it is true, that Byzantine and Roman were at one point in time, synomous, over the centuries they developed greatly, with Rome being Latinzied since Pope Victor I, and the Byzantine tradition influenced by Hellenism and Oriental tradition.

Im against a universal rite. The different rites are what make us unique. Roman, Byzantine, Oriental… all in communion, with all of our liturgical worship each in its own liturgical language, Latin, Greek, Slavonic, etc…
 
ConstantinePX said:
As a Roman I dont really think its appropriate to force our rite ritual into Byzantine ritualism. While it is true, that Byzantine and Roman were at one point in time, synomous, over the centuries they developed greatly, with Rome being Latinzied since Pope Victor I, and the Byzantine tradition influenced by Hellenism and Oriental tradition.

Im against a universal rite. The different rites are what make us unique. Roman, Byzantine, Oriental… all in communion, with all of our liturgical worship each in its own liturgical language, Latin, Greek, Slavonic, etc…
Click to expand...
Definitely no to a universal rite. The Apostles never intended it that way. If they wanted a universal rite, they would have formalized one from Jerusalem. They never did it, it was never their intention. That is why we should never try to undo the work they did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top