Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Eastern v Western II

>> sw: "You know what I mean and you're just
>> going into the ridiculous now."
>
> John wrote: Appealing to the Puritans in a
> defence of western rite Catholicism is far
> more absurd in my opinion. Nothing could be
> further from a Catholic rite than Puritans.

sw: Whoa pardner! The record will show that it was you, not me, who brought up the Puritans!

You can put your absurdity back where YOU found it! I simply ANSWERED your attempt to claim the Puritans as non-Western.  That horse just ain't gonna ride 'round these parts!


>> sw: "Would you want to allow for that Latin
>> parish to open its doors and openly
>> proselytize to the Russian Orthodox community"
>
> John wrote: This is in a hypothetical future
> scenario where we have union right? How can
> you proselytize someone to join the same
> religion they are already in? Parishes are
> free, I suppose, to invite people to change
> parishes. I don't see the big deal. And I
> already said that, so why say I didn't
> consider it?

sw: Why say it? Because initially you didn't respond to it.

> John wrote: Obviously it is not on now, because we
> don't have union.

sw: Well, there again you are wrong! See the link here. I am quite certain there are some restrictions upon these Roman Catholic churches regarding proselytizing in Russia, but they already co-exist.
Immaculate Conception - Moscow, Russia


Sacred Heart - Samara, Russia
> John wrote: But you have union with the uniates right?

sw: I am making this a different color because I didn't see this question first time around and I did not want to leave it unanswered.  So to answer, first off - they don't like the term "uniates."  They are Eastern Rite Catholics.  They see "uniate" as a pejorative term most often used by some in Orthodoxy as a put-down.  Secondly, yes we have union with the Eastern Rite Catholics.  Did you have a point in asking that question?  (And again I urge you to finish "Rebuttal #3" in our debate before answering more here).

>> sw: "I do not support "enforcing" rites upon those of another Rite, period."
>
> John wrote: So are you willing to repudiate enforcing western rite celibacy
> on eastern rite parishes in the new world or not?

sw: If the Eastern Rite parish is in the jurisdiction of a Latin Rite bishop, then they need to go through him for dispensation.  It simply recognizes his jurisdiction and then he can demonstrate respect for the Eastern culture.  If he chooses not to, I would call that a travesty - but within his rights.

> John wrote: You are happy for Rome to force celibate clery on
> Eastern rite in Western diocese, but you don't want Eastern
> bishops enforcing married clergy on western parishes in an
> Eastern diocese.
>
> Can you not see the hypocrisy?

sw: Get real, John.  NO ONE is "forced to marry" in EITHER rite!  In fact, even in the Eastern rites, if one is unmarried when they become a priest - they are FORBIDDEN from marriage later.  This is true of Orthodoxy too.  

>> sw: "Let go of the hatred"
>
> John responds: Accusing everyone else of hatred gets old
> really fast. it's not very becoming and certainly not very
> Christian.

sw: It is quite Christian to not hide the TRUTH from you!  Should I just turn a blind eye toward your hatred?  No, that would NOT be the Christian thing to do!  You need to self-examine your own words and perhaps deeds here!  I am expressing hope and movement toward reunification - you, on the other hand, are expressing complaints of alleged (and non-existent) oppression - especially when I ask about Western parishes in the East.  No John, it would be unChristian of me to allow your hatred to go unanswered and uncalled - for that would then seem like I endorse your animosity toward the West - which clearly comes forth in your responses here.  I am quite content to let the reader decide who is being "un-Christian" here.

>> sw: I have never supported any forced latinizations.
>
> John responds:  So are you willing to repudiate forced latinization
> of eastern rite clergy in celibacy? Yes or no?

sw:  There is no "forced latinization of eastern (sic) rite (sic) clergy in celibacy."  If the Eastern Rite person/parish is within the jurisdiction of a Latin Rite bishop then, as it should be, the Eastern Rite married person who is not already clergy needs to coordinate this with his patriarchate and the local bishop with jurisdiction.  Keep in mind, even where an Eastern patriarchate has jurisdiction one who is already a priest is not permitted to marry - that being said - even the concept of married clergy is not universal throughout the Eastern Rites!  What you're selling here, my friend, is a pig in a poke.  So I can't answer your loaded question with a "yes or no" response - it's not a valid question for the reasons I have just stated.

>> sw: "Let's say reunification has happened and thus
>> these Latin Rite Catholics would be in the jurisdiction
>> of the Moscow Patriarchate - would they need to be
>> yielding to his wishes"
>
> John responds: Yes they should submit to the Patriarch,
> but the Patriarch should not force them to become
> eastern rite in their practices.

sw: We agree.

> John continues:  Just because I agree they should submit,
> does not mean I have to support every stupid thing the
> Patriarch could in theory tell them to do.

sw: Let the reader note who is going polemic or "un-Christian" here.

> John continues: What if there is a Catholic church in
> Moscow now,

sw: There is (see above).

> John continues: and after reunification the Patriarch tells
> the priest to get married,

sw: John, you're exposing your bigotry and ignorance here.  As I have said repeatedly, even in the Eastern Rites where married clergy is permitted (and again, this is not universal amongst Eastern Rites!) once they are already a presbyter THE CANNOT MARRY!  Now perhaps somewhere, somehow a dispensation MAY be granted (I don't know if this has ever happened, but it would be within the purview of the local ordinary to adjudicate this as he sees fit), but the fact remains the policy is that once a priest you do not marry.  A person who was married prior to becoming a priest can remain married.  

> John continues:  to use leavened bread, and so forth?
> Are you happy? Probably not is my guess.

sw:  As noted above, your premise is quite faulty here - and Eastern Rite Catholics use leavened bread already (though I am aware of some "latinizations" of about 40 years ago - when Eastern parishes were trying to be more ecumenical themselves - it was not "forced" upon them - and those situations, to the best of my knowledge, do not exist anymore).  So again, you assert a lame question - which appears to be based in bigotry/ignorance.  You may think it "unChristian" of me to label this as bigotry - but I can see no other appropriate label.  You're asking loaded questions based in ignorance of actual practice and regulations.

>> sw: "They can, AND DO! (adding back in the part you snipped
>> here) practice their Eastern rites - throughout the
>> world, including the New World!"
>
> John responds: How so when the Pope tells them not to live
> in accordance with eastern canon law?

sw: John, I challenge you to document or retract where the Pope has told Eastern Catholics not to live in accordance with Eastern Canon Law.

>> sw: "You cannot expect that it would be OK for a
>> Latin to go into a predominately Greek culture and
>> start insisting he have all the rights he's accustomed
>> to in the Latin Rite "
>
> John answers: Like what? Why shouldn't he have all
> the rights of his own rite within his own parish?

sw:  A Latin in a Western jurisdiction would be "free" to go out into the streets and proselytize, but this would not be tolerated in an Eastern jurisdiction - and likewise is supposed to be the case of Easterners in Western jurisdictions (though the tolerance in the West seems a bit higher and overlooks such overt proselytizing).

> John continues: You say you don't agree with forced
> latinization, but then you come out with this stuff. You
> can't have it both ways.

sw:  Come on John, what "stuff" have I been putting out which is not consistent with my overall thesis here?  I have been quite consistent and have not resorted to polemical argumentation (though it may seem that way to you when I'm calling you on your polemics).  I continue to pray for the unification of the two Great Churches, somehow I feel like you don't want unification - it feels like you want everything to be Eastern, even in Western Churches, and if it isn't - then you will not accept the validity of Western theology and will fight and/or reject any such unification which is not precisely on your terms.  You don't want reunification, you want conversion of the West - at least that is the appearance you (and OrthoCath) give here.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

3 comments:

  1. "The record will show that it was you, not me, who brought up the Puritans"

    Sure I did. To show that the heritage of the United States is not Roman Catholic. And I stand by my statement that you bringing them up as proof of the rightful status of the United States as western rite Catholic as ridiculous.

    "Why say it? Because initially you didn't respond to it."

    How come I can quote what I said then? " I don't see the problem. Russian bishops DO have western rite parishes."

    "Well, there again you are wrong! See the link here. I am quite certain there are some restrictions upon these Roman Catholic churches regarding proselytizing in Russia, but they already co-exist."

    Wrong about what? I don't see anything I am wrong about. And if there are restrictions upon Catholics in Russia, it is because they are out of communion with Moscow, and not because they are western rite. Whatever restrictions are upon Latin Catholics are no doubt also upon Eastern rite Catholics. To the extent that Catholics are allowed to practice there, do you think anyone is going to tell them whether their priests can be married or what sort of bread to use in the Eucharist?

    "If he chooses not to, I would call that a travesty - but within his rights."

    Well now we are making progress. You've labelled the Vatican's policy a "travesty". Good for you. Now if the Vatican would wake up, maybe we'd be one step closer to union.

    "Get real, John. NO ONE is "forced to marry" in EITHER rite! "

    I didn't say forced to marry. I said forcing married clergy on western parishes.

    "I am expressing hope and movement toward reunification - you, on the other hand, are expressing complaints of alleged (and non-existent) oppression"

    Come now, get off your high horse. Don't shoot the messenger. When Rome tried to enforce these western rite things on its unia, the Carpatho-Russian churches defected en-masse to Orthodoxy.

    I'm telling you that the Orthodox churches won't wear this. While the Western bishop can in theory do what he wants, we are not under a western bishop, and no doubt would not agree to be under one without guarantees. Anyway, these problems aren't deriving from western bishops, they are coming straight from the Vatican. It's not like have a situation of bishops choosing to exercise their local episcopal rights, rather we have a situation of the Pope lording it from on high. Go read Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia from the Papacy opening statement. Is everyone from Nicetas on down unchristian in your view?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "even the concept of married clergy is not universal throughout the Eastern Rites"

    Not that this helps you in any way, but what eastern rites do not have married clergy?

    "even in the Eastern Rites where married clergy is permitted (and again, this is not universal amongst Eastern Rites!) once they are already a presbyter THE CANNOT MARRY! "

    And western rite priests cannot be married at all. Oh, but Rome has married priests, because they gave a dispensation to Anglican priests who convert. In the same way it is possible for the bishop to give a dispensation to a priest to marry. I've heard of cases. At least in theory, it could happen.

    " your premise is quite faulty here - and Eastern Rite Catholics use leavened bread "

    And...? How does this answer the hypothetical? Are you saying you are happy for western parishes to be easternized?

    BTW, I notice that those Catholic churches in Moscow are western. Apparently they had no cares for conforming to the Eastern rite because they are in the East. There is way more evidence that Russia is Eastern rite than there is that the United States is western rite. And yet Catholics set up in Russia with western rite. A tad hypocritical to do that, and then insist that uniates must conform to western rite practices.

    " I challenge you to document or retract where the Pope has told Eastern Catholics not to live in accordance with Eastern Canon Law."

    Canon 13 Quinisext council: ", if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife."

    Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith set out rules in a letter of 2 May 1890 to François-Marie-Benjamin Richard, the Archbishop of Paris, which the Congregation applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States, stating that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States. This rule was restated with special reference to Catholics of Ruthenian Rite by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939.

    If this is no longer in force, great. But Orthodox are going to look at this history and are going to want guarantees.

    "A Latin in a Western jurisdiction would be "free" to go out into the streets and proselytize, but this would not be tolerated in an Eastern jurisdiction"

    I think this is nonsense. Eastern bishops have western rite parishes, and they certainly don't tell the western ones they can't go and preach the gospel.

    " it feels like you want everything to be Eastern, even in Western Churches"

    Ok, when exactly did I say that things should be eastern in western churches?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well John, before I go into a long response to you here - taking up more of your time to respond to me, I urge you to complete your Rebuttal #3 so we can schedule the Live Chat and draw our Papacy Debate to a close. I didn't realize until yesterday that you and "Chris" are one and the same.

    I will pick this up with you still here, but let's get this debate over with. We're probably setting a record for the length of time this debate has been open! Only 2 more phases left after this Rebuttal #3 is done!

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.